Agenda packet — Clovis City Council, March 18, 2024 (part 13 of 15)

The DEIR indicates that the policies discussed above are intended to ensure orderly reorganization to local jurisdictional boundaries, including annexations. Ultimately, LAFCo will determine whether the proposed annexation would first require an update to the Clovis Municipal Service Review in order to approve the annexation. This LAFCo policy was not specifically adopted to avoid or mitigate an environmental effect, rather it is intended to ensure orderly and logical reorganization to local jurisdiction boundaries, including annexations. The proposed Project is consistent with LAFCo policies adopted to address environmental impacts. As such, implementation of the proposed Project will have a less than significant impact relative to this topic.

It is noted that several comments received by the City suggested that an SOI expansion of the nondevelopment area should include extension of City services (i.e., water/sewer) to the areas. For clarification, the non-development area is not proposed for annexation into the City. Rather, it is proposed to be included in the City’s SOI, which would make it eligible for annexation at some future time. A future annexation of the non-development area would require the property owners of those parcels to organize and agree to be annexed into the City, which has not been done as part of the current proposal.

Additionally, it does not appear that the current sentiment from parcel owners in the non-development area would be supportive of annexation into the City at this time. It is noted, however, that the SOI expansion, which does not require the approval of the parcel owners, would allow for future annexation of the non-development area into the City of Clovis if desired by the property owners at some later date.

If the SOI expansion were approved, the non-development area would remain in the unincorporated County, but would be within the City’s SOI. If annexed at some future time, the parcels could be served by City water and sewer. However, annexing these parcels and providing City water and sewer services is not currently proposed.

Master Response 15: Neighborhood Meeting: There are certain mandated meetings that are required under procedures provided in the California Environmental Quality Act. The first is a public scoping meeting when an EIR is to be prepared. The City of Clovis circulated a Notice of Preparation (NOP) of an EIR for the proposed Project on May 9, 2022 to the State Clearinghouse, State Responsible Agencies, State Trustee Agencies, Other Public Agencies, Organizations and Interested Persons. A public scoping meeting was then held on May 25, 2022 to present the project description to the public and interested agencies, and to receive comments from the public and interested agencies regarding the scope of the environmental analysis to be included in the Draft EIR. Concerns raised in response to the NOP were 3271
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North 2.0-19 considered during preparation of the Draft EIR. The NOP and comments received on the NOP by interested parties are presented in Appendix A.

Several comments were provided to the City regarding a neighborhood meeting that was administered by the Applicant. This is not procedurally a meeting that is held under CEQA for the purposes of preparing an EIR, and it was not a meeting that was sponsored by the City staff. The City staff was made aware of the meeting through email communication from citizens/neighbors requesting answers to their questions.

Instead, the meeting was organized and facilitated by the Applicant and their team. The City staff was in attendance and does consider that meeting part of the City’s administrative record on this application.

Master Response 16: Parks/Greenspace: There were comments provided regarding the lack of planned parks, trails, sidewalks, and greenspace. Section 2.0 Project Description presents the parks/greenspace that is proposed, and Section 3.12 Public Services and Recreation provides an analysis of the proposal relative to the park requirements.

It should be noted that the proposed Project includes the development of open space totaling approximately 5.54 acres, including 2.25 acres of trails, 2.39 acres of promenade/pedestrian circulation, and 0.90 acres of parks as described in DEIR Section 2.0 Project Description. The main park would be located within the central portion of the Development Area, which would connect to a network of promenades and trails located within and along the perimeter of a portion of the Development Area. The promenade and trail network would also link to adjacent trails located in the planned residential community to the west, as well as the Dry Creek Trail and Clovis Old Town Trail to the south.

As described on page 3.12-5, the Clovis General Plan establishes a goal of four acres of parkland per 1,000 residents, which exceeds the requirement set forth by the Quimby Act. Page 3.12-24 through 3.12-25 includes an analysis of the proposed Project relative to the City’s parkland requirements. The DEIR indicates that the Project is estimated to increase the population by 1,700 residents (based on 2.81 persons per household), and that the proposed parkland offered by the Project would not provide the park land needed to meet the four acres per 1,000 people. However, the DEIR references the Municipal Code Chapter 3.4, Park Acquisition and Development, which states that any developer who plans for dwelling units to be constructed in the City shall pay, in addition to any other fees required to be paid by the City, a fee which shall be calculated on the basis of park acreage designated in the Clovis General Plan consisting of the estimated total land acquisition and construction cost distributed on the basis of the remaining developable area within the sphere of influence. In accordance with the Municipal Code, fees are deposited in specific funds that shall be used solely for the acquisition, improvement and expansion of public parks and recreation facilities as outlined in the park acquisition and improvement fee update.

As a results of the requirement, the Project will dedicate the proposed parkland and pay an in-lieu fee for the difference in accordance with the Clovis Municipal Code Chapter 3.04. This is consistent with State law and the City’s requirements for parkland dedication and in-lieu fee payments for parkland.

Master Response 17: Noise: Comments were provided regarding increased noise from traffic, construction (i.e., cement/asphalt), and that the existing neighborhood is quiet and will change dramatically.
3272
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

2.0-20 Final Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North Effects of Noise on People and Ambient Noise: The DEIR discusses the fundamentals of noise on page

3.11-2, and provides examples of typical noise levels associated with various activities in Table 3.11-1.

Page 3 ends

down into the following three categories:
• Subjective effects of annoyance, nuisance, and dissatisfaction; • Interference with activities such as speech, sleep, and learning; and • Physiological effects such as hearing loss or sudden startling.

The DEIR indicate that environmental noise typically produces effects in the first two categories. Workers in industrial plants can experience noise in the last category. The DEIR states that there is no completely satisfactory way to measure the subjective effects of noise or the corresponding reactions of annoyance and dissatisfaction. A wide variation in individual thresholds of annoyance exists and different tolerances to noise tend to develop based on an individual’s past experiences with noise.

The DEIR indicates that an important way of predicting a human reaction to a new noise environment is the way it compares to the existing environment to which one has adapted: the so-called ambient noise level. In general, the more a new noise exceeds the previously existing ambient noise level, the less acceptable the new noise will be judged by those hearing it. With regard to increases in A-weighted noise level, the following relationships occur:
• Except in carefully controlled laboratory experiments, a 1 dB change cannot be perceived; • Outside of the laboratory, a 3-dB change is considered a just-perceivable difference; • A change in level of at least 5-dB is required before any noticeable change in human response would be expected; and
• A 10-dB change is subjectively heard as approximately a doubling in loudness, and can cause an adverse response.

Stationary point sources of noise – including stationary mobile sources such as idling vehicles – attenuate (lessen) at a rate of approximately 6 dB per doubling of distance from the source, depending on environmental conditions (i.e. atmospheric conditions and either vegetative or manufactured noise barriers, etc.). Widely distributed noises, such as a large industrial facility spread over many acres, or a street with moving vehicles, would typically attenuate at a lower rate.

Existing noise levels is discussed on page 3.11-4. Noise data indicates that traffic along Shepherd Avenue is the primary source of noise impacting the Project site and the adjacent uses. The results of the shortterm noise data are presented in Table 3.11-2 on page 3.11-4 of the Draft EIR. To quantify the existing ambient noise environment in the Project Vicinity, three 15-min ambient noise measurements were conducted at or near the Project site. The noise measurements were taken to determine the existing ambient noise levels. Noise data indicates that traffic along Shepherd Avenue is the primary source of noise impacting the Project site and the adjacent uses. Noise data shown in Table 3.11-2 indicates the ambient noise level ranged from 46 to 69 dBA Leq at the Project site. Maximum levels reached up to 82 dBA as a result of traffic of heavy trucks along Shepherd Avenue. 3273
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North 2.0-21 Traffic Noise: An analysis of operational noise associated with the Project is presented on page 3.11-5 through 3.11-19. Table 3.11-9 presents the existing plus project noise levels along various roadways. As noted on page 3.11-5 of the DEIR, A change of 3 dB or more is required to have a perceptible difference in noise levels. The DEIR identifies Sunnyside Avenue from Project Intersection 1 to Shepherd Avenue as having the potential for a significant impact with an increase of more than 3 dB. There are no other potentially significant impacts identified from traffic noise increases of 3dB or more.

The DEIR discusses cumulative traffic noise on pages 3.11-20 through 3.11-22. Tables 3.11-9 and 3.11-10 compare the without and with project scenario and shows the change in traffic noise levels as a result of the proposed Project. Again, it takes a change of 3 dB or more to hear a perceptible difference. The analysis shows that the Cumulative 2046 scenario has a maximum change in noise level of 0.7 dBA CNEL.

Sunnyside Avenue from Project Intersection 1 to Shepherd Avenue has a 0.5 dBA CNEL change. Future residential uses will be in the normally compatible level along that segment. Therefore, a less than significant impact would occur with regard to this cumulative impact.

Construction Noise: An analysis of construction noise associated with the Project is presented on page

3.11-19 through 3.11-20. The DEIR indicates that during the construction of the Project, including roads, water, sewer lines, and related infrastructure, noise from construction activities would add to the noise environment in the Project vicinity. Construction noise is considered a short-term impact and would be considered significant if construction activities are taken outside the allowable times as described in the City of Clovis Municipal Code Section 5.27.604. Construction is anticipated to occur during the permissible hours according to the City's Municipal Code. Construction noise will have a temporary or periodic increase in the ambient noise level above the existing within the Project vicinity. Typical operating cycles for these types of construction equipment may involve one or two minutes of full-power operation followed by three to four minutes at lower power settings. Noise levels will be the loudest during the grading phase.

The modeling assumes construction equipment as close as 25 feet from the adjacent residences and an average of 550 feet away from the adjacent residences. Unmitigated noise levels at 550 feet have the potential to reach 60 dBA Leq and 92 dBA Lmax at the nearest sensitive receptors during grading. Noise levels for the other construction phases would be lower, approximately from 46 to 59 dBA Leq and 86 to 93 dBA Lmax. This would be a 13 dB Leq daytime increase in the ambient noise level at the residents along Perrin Rd., Purdue Ave., and East Lexington Ave.

The DEIR also indicates that noise reduction policies within the General Plan and standards within the Municipal Code are provided to further reduce construction noise. Mitigation Measure 3.11-3, presented on page 3.11-20 of the DEIR, embodies a preexisting legal requirement from City of Clovis Municipal Code Section 5.27.604 that ensures that construction activities are performed within specific hours. Mitigation Measure 3.11-4, also presented on page 3.11-20 of the DEIR, provides specific requirements for attenuating noise during construction. With implementation of the Mitigation Measure 3.11-3 and 3.11- 4, the potential impacts of construction noise are reduced to a less than significant level.

Master Response 18: Aesthetics/Lights: Comments were provided regarding the change of agricultural and rural character, increase in the presence of people in the area, increased lighting, and also regarding the visual presence of two-story homes backing up to existing homes. 3274
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

2.0-22 Final Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North Visual Character: The visual character of the Site is discussed on page 3.1-4 of the DEIR. Here the region and vicinity are described as follows: The City of Clovis is in California’s San Joaquin Valley, and like most communities in the region, features a flat landscape organized around an orthogonal system of roadways.

Due to its rapid growth in recent years and its adjacency to the City of Fresno, Clovis has a largely suburban character. A majority of the City’s land area is devoted to low density residential neighborhoods. However, because the community has grown from a small farming town and is still surrounded by agricultural land uses on three sides, it retains a rural atmosphere. The suburban/rural interface is most prominent on the City’s eastern, southeastern, and southern edges. In these locations, new housing subdivisions are sited between working farms and large residential estate lots of two to five acres. The SOI beyond the City’s Limits to the east, northeast, and north is dominated by agricultural uses and undeveloped open spaces.

The Project site is located in the north, and the immediately surrounding area is best characterized as a mix of agricultural, suburban residential, and large estate lots with existing residences.

The impact on the visual character is evaluated in the DEIR on pages 3.1-10 through 3.1-13. Here the proposed Project is described as involving an expansion of the City’s Sphere of Influence (SOI) to add approximately 155 acres into the City of Clovis’ SOI, including the annexation/reorganization of the proposed 77-acre Development Area to develop 605 single-family detached units, open space totaling

5.54 acres, including 2.25 acres of trails, 2.39 acres of promenade/pedestrian circulation, and 0.90 acres of parks, and associated roadway improvements. The DEIR indicates that the non-Development Area includes the parcels being included in the Sphere of Influence (SOI) expansion that will not be entitled for subdivision or development and no new development or improvements are proposed as part of this proposed Project for the Non-development Area. The DEIR concludes that the existing visual character of the Non-development Area would not change as part of this proposed Project.

The DEIR indicates that development of the proposed Project would convert the 77-acre Development Area from its existing use as primarily agricultural land to a residential neighborhood. The neighborhoods within the Development Area would include a network of streets to provide an efficient flow of traffic through the area. Other uses to support and compliment the proposed residential development include underground (non-visible) wet and dry utility infrastructure, roadways with curb/gutters/sidewalks, bicycle/pedestrian facilities, street lighting, and street signage.

The Project site is not designated as a scenic vista by the City of Clovis General Plan or the Fresno County General Plan, nor does it contain any unique or distinguishing features that would qualify the site for designation as a scenic vista. However, the City’s General Plan EIR considers Shepherd Avenue a scenic corridor under the General Plan Open Space and Conservation Element. The City’s General Plan EIR notes that new development will impact current views of open space, which are primarily vistas of agricultural fields and orchards. These public views are primarily available to motorists traveling along roadways which bound the Development Area. Implementation of the proposed Project would change the existing visual character of the Development Area from a primarily agricultural site to a developed suburban neighborhood. These impacts related to a change in visual character may be considered “attractive” to one viewer and “unattractive” to other viewers. It is noted that the Clovis General Plan EIR concluded that adoption of the General plan which contemplated urbanization of the agricultural lands within the General Plan study area, was a less than significant environmental impact. 3275
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North 2.0-23 The Draft EIR references Policy 2.3 of the Clovis General Plan Update’s Open Space and Conservation Element, which gives substantial consideration to the preservation of scenic vistas, corridors, and scenic resources, such as maintaining public views of open spaces, parks, and natural features; enhancing views along roadways and trails; preserving Clovis’ viewshed of the surrounding foothills; and orienting new development to capitalize on views of the Sierra Nevada. Chapter 9 of the Clovis Development Code also establishes requirements for fences, walls, and hedges to ensure that these elements minimize screening of scenic views and sunlight by outlining provisions such as height limitations, design and construction materials, site plan review requirements, allowable fencing materials, etc. per Section 9.24.060 (Fences, Walls, and Hedges); and screening and buffering requirements of adjoining land uses, utility equipment, and refuse areas are detailed in Section 9.24.090 (Screening and Buffering). Development in accordance with these code requirements would ensure that the implantation of the proposed Project would not have a substantial adverse impact on scenic vistas, corridors, or resources in the City of Clovis.

The Draft EIR indicates that the Project site currently consists primarily of agricultural lands, primarily a pecan orchard that is currently being removed due to the tree mortality. The DEIR states that the agricultural land provides visual relief from urban and suburban developments, and helps to define the character of a region. The proposed Project would develop the last remaining property in agricultural use in an area surrounded by urban and Rural Residential uses. Supporting infrastructure would be extended to the area, which would result in the permanent loss of these agricultural uses. The DEIR indicates that under some circumstances, loss of agricultural lands could have an adverse cumulative impact on the overall visual character and quality of a region, but that the orchard portion of the Project site is an island of agricultural land use surrounded by developed homes to the east, north, and south, and an entitled residential subdivision to the west. What this means is that the orchard is a relic agricultural piece of property that has remained intact and operational despite the properties in the immediate surrounding aesthetically changing to suburban residential aesthetic. The DEIR indicates that the proposed Project would change the existing aesthetic of the Project site to be consistent with the urban landscaping theme established for Shepherd Avenue by the City of Fresno and its urban projects as well as the City of Clovis and its urban projects that generally continues that urban landscaping theme along Shepherd Avenue.

With few exceptions, both cities have required residential projects to construct a uniform 6 ft. tall concrete block wall setback at least 30 feet from the street with landscaping, sidewalks and bike lanes.

Trees of a small to medium size and a variety of shrubs create a generally consistent shared landscape theme by both cities.

The DEIR also indicates that a change in the visual character of a project site does not necessarily mean the visual character of the project site or the surrounding area will be degraded. The Project applicant has submitted a conceptual plan for the project detailing the Shepherd Avenue and open space landscaping for the proposed developed prepared by a licensed landscape architect. That conceptual landscape plan includes visual components that will enhance the appearance of the neighborhood once developed similar to those constructed by adjacent residential projects along Shepherd Avenue. These improvements include landscaping improvements like new street trees and other neighborhood greenery along Shepherd and Sunnyside Street frontages of the Project. The proposed Project would also result in the construction of park and open space areas which provides some visual relief within residential subdivisions. While implementation of the proposed Project would change the existing visual character of 3276
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

2.0-24 Final Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North the area, the development components of the subdivisions are in alignment with the City’s requirements for residential subdivisions in the region.

The DEIR indicates that development within the Project site is required to be consistent with the General Plan and the Clovis Zoning Ordinance, which includes design standards. The City of Clovis zoning ordinance and ministerial permits design, construction and maintenance standards will ensure quality and cohesive design of the Project site. These standards include specifications for building height, massing, and orientation, exterior lighting standards, and landscaping standards. Following the City’s design, construction, and maintenance requirements will produce a project that will be internally cohesive, while maintaining and aesthetic feel similar to that of the surrounding urban uses.

The loss of the visual appearance of the agricultural land on the site will change the visual character of the Project site in perpetuity, which some people are expected to view as a loss of an isolated visually attractive amenity. Compliance with the requirements within the General Plan, as well as the Municipal Code (specifically Title 7 Public Works, Title 8 Building Regulations, Title 9 Development Code, and Title 10 Parks and Recreation), for the design, construction, and maintenance of the project will be required.

Title 9 Development Code Division 3 includes a series of Development and Operational Standards that are aimed at creating uniform performance standards which are designed to minimize and mitigate the potential impacts of development within the City and promote compatibility with surrounding areas and land uses. These standards cover topics such as exterior light and glare (Section 9.22.050), fences, walls, and hedges (Section 9.24.060), height measure and height limit exceptions (9.24.080), screening and buffering (Section 9.24.090), setback regulations and exceptions (Section 9.24.100), landscaping standards (Chapter 9.28), tree protection standards (Chapter 9.30), and signs (Chapter 9.34). Some of these standards and requirements from pre-existing regulations are implemented after Project entitlement when more detailed site planning, engineering, and architecture is performed. The final approval of these items is ministerial. Some examples of requirements that the Project will follow are:

1. The Project will be required to submit and obtain approval form the City of Clovis of a comprehensive landscape and irrigation plan prepared by a licensed landscape architect that is in substantial conformity with the submitted project conceptual landscaping plan, entry treatment and park improvements. The City of Clovis ministerial permits for landscaping, irrigation and grading will assure said landscaping and irrigation complies with applicable state and local plant type and irrigation and grading standards.

2. The Project will be required to annex into a City of Clovis landscaping lighting and maintenance district (LLMD) that will assure that all landscaping and lighting within the public easements along Shepherd and Sunnyside Avenues are properly maintained in manner acceptable to the City of Clovis.

3. The Project will form a common interest association for the purpose of, among other things, common area maintenance. Said maintenance will be at the Project owner’s expense. The common interest association will be subject to California Department of Real Estate operational and financial surety requirements.

4. Each Project lot will be subject to the City of Clovis requirement that a Residential Site Plan Review be submitted and approved by the City of Clovis. The Residential Site Plan Review process will require, among other things, that all lots meet applicable development standards; share a 3277
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North 2.0-25 compatible architectural, landscaping and color scheme and conform to mandatory grading and drainage standards.

The Municipal Code implements the policies of the Clovis General Plan by classifying and regulating the uses of land and structures within the City of Clovis. The Municipal Code is adopted to protect and to promote the public health, safety, comfort, convenience, prosperity, and general welfare of residents and businesses in the City. These existing requirements provide standards for the orderly growth and development of the City to establish and maintain the community’s history and quality characteristics in appropriate locations. It requires high quality planning and design for development that enhances the visual character of the City, avoids conflicts between land uses, encourages the appropriate mix of uses, and preserves the scenic qualities of the City. It also creates a comprehensive and stable pattern of land uses upon which to plan sewerage, transportation, water supply, and other public facilities and utilities.

Overall, these mandatory requirements are deemed effective in reducing potential visual impacts. This is particularly true here where the project site is an isolated and remnant agricultural use surrounded by residential and rural residential land uses. Therefore, the Project’s potential to adversely impact aesthetics is considered less than significant.

Light: Light is addressed on page 3.1-3, and 3.1-14 through 1.1-15 of the DEIR. The DEIR notes that the proposed Project involves the development of up to 605 single-family residential units, open space totaling approximately 5.54 acres, including 2.25 acres of trails, 2.39 acres of promenade/pedestrian circulation, and 0.90 acres of parks, and associated roadway improvements. The DEIR indicates that several roadways would be constructed within the Development Area to serve the proposed single-family residential uses and that these roadways would result in the introduction of street lighting into a currently undeveloped site. The DEIR indicates that the proposed single-family residential uses and local roadway would be typical of what is already experienced as a result of the existing single-family residential uses and local roadways that occur within the surrounding area. The proposed single-family residential uses would be an extension of single-family residential uses adjacent to the Project site.

The DEIR indicates that the proposed Project would be required to implement existing City regulations aimed at reducing light impacts to ensure that no unusual nighttime lighting is produced. Specifically, Section 9.22.050 of the Clovis Development Code contains standards and provisions related to exterior lighting. The DEIR indicates that while implementation of regulations and standards within the Clovis Development Code would reduce impacts associated with increased light, the impacts would not be eliminated entirely, and the overall level of light and glare in the Project site would increase in general as urban development occurs.

Overall, the proposed Project would introduce new sources of nighttime lighting within the Project site that do not currently exist. However, it is noted there are no specific features within the proposed Project that would create unusual light and glare. Light sources from the proposed Project can have an adverse impact on the surrounding areas, by introducing nuisance light into the area and decreasing the visibility of nighttime skies. Additionally, light sources can create light spillover impacts on surrounding land uses in the absence of a lighting plan that includes photometrics of the lighting. Any new lighting associated with implementation of the proposed Project would be pedestrian-scale lighting and the fixtures would be consistent with the style and technical specifications approved by the City, including compliance with the City’s light and glare regulations under Section 9.22.050 of the Clovis Development Code, which 3278
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

2.0-26 Final Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North requires that light be shielded so that light does not spill onto adjacent properties. The City’s existing requirements require a lighting plan to be submitted to the City for review and approval for the improvement plans, as well as for the building plans. All proposed outdoor lighting is required to meet applicable City standards regulating outdoor lighting, including 9.22.050 Exterior light and glare of the City’s Development code, in order to minimize any impacts resulting from outdoor lighting on adjacent properties. Implementation of the existing City standards would reduce potential impacts associated with nighttime lighting and light spillage onto adjacent properties to a less than significant level.

Two Story Homes: Comments were received regarding concerns that two story houses would back up to their houses. It is noted that the project is not proposed as a pre-plotted subdivision that identifies specific housing architecture or floor plans on each lot. For example, we do not have any knowledge of whether a one- or two-story residence would be built backing up to the commenter’s residence. The zoning code dictates the development standards for zones throughout the City, and it will dictate the standards that apply to the proposed subdivision. One- and two-story residences are allowed up to the height limits defined in the zone. The concept of limiting the height of homes backing up to the commenter’s residence can be presented as a concept for the Applicant to consider, but City’s zoning code does not restrict the height to a one story. This concern does not present an environmental impact pursuant to CEQA.

Master Response 19: Air Quality, GHG, Energy: Air Quality is addressed in DEIR Section 3.3 Air Quality, GHG and Energy is addressed in DEIR Section 3.7. The analysis utilized the California Emission Estimator Model (CalEEMod)TM developed for the California Air Pollution Officers Association (CAPCOA) in collaboration with California air districts, was used to estimate emissions for the proposed Project. Project buildout was assumed to be completed in 2028, consistent with the Transportation Impact Analysis, prepared by LSA (LSA, 2023). The DEIR indicates that this may prove to be a conservative estimate because criteria pollutant emission rates are reduced over time (due to state and federal mandates) and would be expected to be even lower than reported in the analysis, should the Project buildout be completed after 2028. Table 3.3-6 located on page 3.3-27 of the DEIR indicates that operational emissions would not exceed any of the SJVACPD operational thresholds of significance.

The DEIR also evaluated the effects of the Project on public health, where it found that the increases of pollutants generated by the proposed Project are not on their own likely to generate an increase in the number of days exceeding the NAAQS or CAAQS standards, based on the size of the proposed Project in comparison to Fresno County as a whole. However, the DEIR indicates that the increases in ROG and NOx generated by the proposed Project when combined with the existing ROG and NOx emitted regionally, would affect people, especially those with impaired respiratory systems located in the immediate vicinity of the Project site. Nevertheless, the proposed Project’s operational criteria pollutant would not exceed the applicable SJVAPCD thresholds of significance. Therefore, the Project’s criteria pollutant emissions would be considered to have a less than significant impact.

The DEIR also evaluated construction emissions, which represent temporary impacts that are typically short in duration, depending on the size, phasing, and type of project. Air quality impacts can nevertheless be acute during construction periods, resulting in significant localized impacts to air quality. Constructionrelated activities would result in Project-generated emissions from demolition, site preparation, grading, paving, building construction, and architectural coatings. 3279
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North 2.0-27 If the proposed Project’s emissions will exceed the SJVAPCD’s threshold of significance for constructiongenerated emissions, the proposed Project will have a significant impact on air quality and all feasible mitigation are required to be implemented to reduce emissions. Table 3.3-7 on page 3.3-30 of the DEIR shows the maximum construction emissions would not exceed the SJVAPCD thresholds of significance.

Nevertheless, regardless of emission quantities, the SJVAPCD requires construction related control measures in accordance with their rules and regulations. Implementation of these control measures (provided in on page 3.3-31 of the DEIR) would further reduce proposed Project construction related emissions to the extent possible.

The DEIR indicates that the project is located in an area that is designated attainment and attainmentunclassified for carbon monoxide, and that substantial concentrations of carbon monoxide are not expected at or along any streets or intersections affected by the development of the Project site. Impacts associated with carbon monoxide hotspots would be less than significant, and no additional mitigation is required.

GHG and Energy is analyzed in Section 3.7 of the DEIR. The DEIR indicates that the Project, including the off-site improvements, would be consistent with the plans, policies, regulations, and GHG emissions reduction actions/strategies outlined in the 2022 Scoping Plan Update, the Fresno COG’s 2022 RTP/SCS, and the Clovis General Plan. Furthermore, because the Project is consistent and does not conflict with these plans, policies, and regulations, the Project’s incremental increase in GHG emissions as described above would not result in a significant impact on the environment. Therefore, Project-related impacts related to GHG emissions would be less than significant relative to this topic.

The proposed Project would use energy resources for the operation of Project buildings (electricity), outdoor lighting (electricity), for on-road vehicle trips (e.g. gasoline and diesel fuel) rerouted by the proposed Project, and from off-road and on-road construction activities associated with the proposed Project (e.g. diesel fuel). Each of these activities would require the use of energy resources. The proposed Project would be responsible for conserving energy, to the extent feasible, and relies heavily on reducing per capita energy consumption to achieve this goal, including through statewide and local measures.

The proposed Project would be in compliance with all applicable federal, State, and local regulations regulating energy usage. For example, PG&E, the electric and natural gas provider to the proposed Project, is responsible for the mix of energy resources used to provide electricity for its customers, and it is in the process of implementing the statewide RPS to increase the proportion of renewable energy (e.g. solar and wind) within its energy portfolio. PG&E has achieved at least a 33% mix of renewable energy resources in 2020 and is on track to achieve 60% mix of renewable energy by 2030. Other statewide measures, including those intended to improve the energy efficiency of the statewide passenger and heavy-duty truck vehicle fleet (e.g. the Pavley Bill and the Low Carbon Fuel Standard), would improve vehicle fuel economies, thereby conserving gasoline and diesel fuel. These energy savings would continue to accrue over time.

The proposed Project would comply with all existing energy standards and would not be expected to result in significant adverse impacts on energy resources. For these reasons, the proposed Project would not cause an inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary use of energy resources nor cause a significant impact on any of the thresholds as described by the CEQA Guidelines. This is a less than significant impact. 3280
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

2.0-28 Final Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North A-1
3281
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North 2.0-29 A-2
3282
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

2.0-30 Final Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North A-2 Cont’d
3283
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North 2.0-31 3284
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

2.0-32 Final Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North Response to Letter A: Laurence Kimura, P.E., Fresno Irrigation District Response A-1: The commentor provides a brief paragraph describing that their agency provided a comment letter on the NOP for the project and the comments from that letter still apply. • This comment is noted. The comment on the NOP was provided in Appendix A of the Draft EIR, and the content of the comments were addressed, in part, in Section 3.9 Hydrology and Water Quality, and Section 3.14 Utilities. • FID NOP Bullet #1: It is noted that FID does not own, operate, or maintain any facilities located on the Project site.
• FID NOP Bullet #2: It is noted that the proposed development is not currently within the City of Clovis. The proposed Project is an annexation, where if approved, would move the Development Area into the city limits. The City recognizes that water service is provided to property within the city limits, and the City intends to supply water to planned growth when it annexes land into its jurisdiction. As such, the City prepared a Water Supply Assessment to evaluate the supply of water to future citizens in the Development Area. The Water Supply Assessment is summarized in Section 3.14 of the EIR, and is included as an Appendix to the EIR.

Page 3 ends

Water Treatment Plant (SWTP), located on the Enterprise Canal on the east side of Clovis, in 2004. Kings River water is supplied to the plant via Fresno Irrigation District’s (FID) Enterprise Canal. This 22.5 million-gallons-per-day plant allows Clovis to serve existing users and new growth areas, while lessening the demand on groundwater.”

Page 3 ends

different contracts, all of which are delivered to the City by the Fresno Irrigation District (FID). The various surface water supplies are from the Kings River. The Central Valley Project is a planned supply for the future. The average delivery the City has received of its total allocation is just over 17,000 AF per year, with the smallest delivery being 9,452 AF in 2015 and the largest of 24,958 in 2017. The City executed a new, firm water supply, agreement with FID in 2019 that provides a surface water supply that does not fluctuate with the FID entitlement or allocation and will be available to the City on a consistent basis. This agreement provides for up to 7,000 AF per year by 2045, beginning at 1,000 AF in 2020. As the City grows and annexes portions of the Garfield and International Water Districts, those CVP, Class I water rights will be transferred to the City and added to the overall water supply portfolio. (Provost & Pritchard, 2021B)…FID’s average gross annual entitlement is 452,541 AF. Within the last fifty years, the smallest entitlement received was 158,109 AF, which occurred in 2015. The City’s 3285
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North 2.0-33 allocation from the Kings River is proportional to the total acreage of the City's included area to the total FID area receiving water. Over time, the City has received on average 17,011 AFY, though this has varied from 9,452 AF in the severe drought of 2015 to over 24,958 AF in 2017. (Provost & Pritchard, 2021B)…Two additional water districts are located within the City’s General Plan Boundaries: Garfield Water District (GWD) and International Water District (IWD).

Both have access to Class I CVP surface water supplies. The GWD holds a Class 1 CVP contract for 3,500 AFY. With half of GWD within the City’s SOI, an estimated 1,750 AFY is expected to be added to the City’s supply upon development. The IWD holds a Class 1 CVP contract for 1,200 AFY. The City’s General Plan designates a portion of the District’s area as industrial and residential use. At build-out it is estimated that the entire 1,200 AFY supply will be added to the City’s Supply. As the districts urbanize, supplies associated with these areas are expected to be added to the City’s supply. The City uses their surface water supplies in two primary ways: (1) as potable water supply after being treated at the City’s Surface Water Treatment Plant (SWTP) or (2) as groundwater recharge in various basins located in and around the City’s service area. (Provost & Pritchard, 2021B).”

Page 3 ends

conveyed to the City by the FID. The Kings River is impacted by the level of snowmelt and precipitation received in the area and is susceptible to dry conditions. The City’s contract with FID ensures that the City receives a percentage of the total FID entitlement, approximately 2.1 AF per acre within the FID boundary; the City’s area is capped at 7.12 percent of the FID boundary or approximately 32,100 AFY in a normal water year. Additionally, the City has recently executed an additional contract with FID for development of a new, firm water supply starting at 1,000 AFY in 2020 and increasing to a maximum of 7,000 AFY by 2045 and thereafter; this new supply will not have the variability of the existing supply based on water year. Historically, FID’s entitlement on the Kings River has been considered reliable although it was affected significantly by the recent drought.”

Page 3 ends

an extension of existing potable and non‐potable systems. The proposed water system will be located within the proposed public utilities easements and be connected to existing City mains and will comply with City Master Plans and standards. The City of Clovis provides water supplies to the City of Clovis. The City has three main water supply sources: groundwater, surface water, and recycled water. The City extracts groundwater from the Kings Subbasin. Surface water is delivered to the City by the Fresno Irrigation District (FID). The various surface water supplies are from the Kings River and Central Valley Project. The City’s ST3286 AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

2.0-34 Final Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North WRF produces tertiary treated effluent that can be used for agriculture or landscape irrigation.”
• FID NOP Bullet #3: Groundwater and water supply is addressed in DEIR Section

3.9 Hydrology and Water Quality and in Section 3.14 Utilities. The DEIR references the City of Clovis Urban Water Management Plan 2020 Update (Provost & Pritchard, 2021B), City of Clovis Water Shortage Contingency Plan 2020 Update (Provost & Pritchard, 2021A); the City of Clovis Water Master Plan Update Phase III (Provost & Pritchard, 2017), and the California’s Groundwater: Bulletin 118 - San Joaquin Valley Groundwater Basin/Kings Subbasin (DWR 2006) as a source of information to support the analysis of water supply.

The DEIR indicates that the City has access to surface water through several different contracts, all of which are delivered to the City by the Fresno Irrigation District (FID). (DEIR p. 3.9-4). The various surface water supplies are from the Kings River and Central Valley Project. The average delivery the City has received of its total allocation is just over 17,000 AF per year, with the smallest delivery being 9,452 AF in 2015 and the largest of 24,958 in 2017. The City executed a new, firm water supply, agreement with FID in 2019 that provides a surface water supply that does not fluctuate with the FID entitlement or allocation and will be available to the City on a consistent basis. This agreement provides for up to 7,000 AF per year by 2045, beginning at 1,000 AF in 2020. As the City grows and annexes portions of the Garfield and International Water Districts, those CVP, Class I water rights will be transferred to the City and added to the overall water supply portfolio. (Provost & Pritchard, 2021B).

The DEIR indicates that the City’s groundwater supplies stem from the basin underlying the area, the Kings Subbasin; the Subbasin holds a status of being critically over drafted. The Kings Subbasin, a non-adjudicated basin, is a highpriority basin, which lies within the Tulare Lake Hydrologic Basin. This Basin contains multiple interconnected subbasins that transmit, filter and store water.

These subbasins are Kaweah and Tulare Lake to the south, Westside and Delta Mendota to the west, and Madera to the North. (Provost & Pritchard, 2021B).

In response to public comments regarding groundwater concerns, the Applicant retained Kenneth D. Schmidt and Associates to prepare an analysis of the groundwater conditions in the vicinity of the Project Site. The report is dated September 2023 and was submitted to the City of Clovis for their review and consideration. The City’s Supervising Engineer reviewed the report and concurs with the opinions provided. Furthermore, the City’s Supervising Engineer indicated that the author has been an expert in this field for many decades.

After the City had reviewed and concurred with the report, it was provided to the City’s EIR consultant for a second independent review. The City’s EIR consultant found that the opinions in the report are consistent with, and supportive of, the 3287
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North 2.0-35 original findings in the DEIR. It was found that the report is a good source of information for further affirmation of the DEIR conclusions, and it was determined that including the report as an Appendix to the EIR would amplify and clarify information already provided in the EIR.

The conclusion of the report is that the proposed project would use water from the City of Clovis distribution system as opposed to on-site wells. In terms of groundwater, there would be an overall reduction in groundwater pumpage of about 400 acre-feet per year. This would be beneficial to the local groundwater supplies. The full report is included in Section 3.0 Errata.

The DEIR also indicates that the proposed Project would result in new impervious surfaces and could reduce rainwater infiltration and groundwater recharge.

Infiltration rates vary depending on the overlying soil types. In general, sandy soils have higher infiltration rates and can contribute to significant amounts of ground water recharge; clay soils tend to have lower percolation potential; and impervious surfaces such as pavement, significantly reduce infiltration capacity and increase surface water runoff. (DEIR p3.9-24 through 3.9-27).

The DEIR indicates that the soils contained on the Project site have a hydrologic rating ranging from “A,” which is indicative of soils having a high infiltration rate (low runoff potential) when thoroughly wet, to “D,” which is indicative of soils having a very slow infiltration rate (high runoff potential) when thoroughly wet.

Figure 3.2-2 in the DEIR identifies Project site soils, and Table 3.9-2 provides a list of the soils and hydrologic rating of each soil, including the percentage of the project area.

The infiltration rate of the soils on the Project site ranges from low to high. As indicated in the Geotechnical Report (Krazan & Associates, 2019), cemented silty sand and silty sand with trace clay, locally referred to as "hardpan," were encountered in several of the borings at the Project site. This cementation inhibits infiltration of surface water into the soil stratum below the hardpan. Therefore, it can be presumed that the Project site generally does not allow for a high level of groundwater recharge in its existing condition. Development of the Project site with impervious surfaces is unlikely to reduce rainwater infiltration and groundwater recharge when compared to existing conditions. The open space areas of the development totaling approximately 5.54 acres will remain largely pervious. The collection of rainwater for those areas of impervious surfaces will be routed into the proposed Project’s storm drainage system and eventually flow into the San Joaquin River.
• FID NOP Bullet #4: The EIR addresses the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) in Section 3.9 Hydrology and Water Quality, and in Section 3.14 Utilities. The EIR notes that SGMA was signed into law to provide a framework for management of groundwater supplies by local agencies and restricts state 3288
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

2.0-36 Final Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North intervention, if required. SGMA provides an opportunity for local agencies overlying the basin to form a Groundwater Sustainability Agency (GSA), which is the primary agency responsible for achieving sustainability. As part of the region’s compliance with SGMA, the North Kings Groundwater Sustainability Agency (NKGSA) was formed and includes representatives from Bakman Water Company, Biola Community Services District, City of Fresno, City of Clovis, City of Kerman, County of Fresno, Fresno Irrigation District, Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District, Garfield Water District, and International Water District. The North Kings Groundwater Sustainability Agency adopted a Groundwater Sustainability Plan (GSP) in late 2019.

The EIR notes that the City is a member of the North Kings Groundwater Sustainability Agency (NKGSA). The NKGSA is working collaboratively, under a coordination agreement with the other six (6) Groundwater Sustainability Agencies in the Kings Subbasin to achieve sustainable groundwater conditions by 2040, in accordance with the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act of 2014 (SGMA) for critically over drafted groundwater basins, such as the Kings Subbasin. (Provost & Pritchard, 2021B).

The EIR notes that the City will continue increasing its surface water and recycled water supply usage to a point where the groundwater extraction is not greater than the sustainable yield in a normal year. The sustainable yield is currently estimated at 9,400 AF per year (AFY) for the SOI. (Provost & Pritchard, 2021B). • FID NOP Bullet #5: Page 3.14-28 of the EIR states “Water demands for the proposed Project will be served using the City’s existing and future portfolio of water supplies. The inclusion of existing and planned future supplies is specifically allowed by the Water Code:

Water Code section 10631(b): Identify and quantify, to the extent practicable, the existing and planned sources of water available to the supplier over the same five-year increments described in subdivision (a).

The EIR indicates states “The applicants for the proposed Project will provide their proportionate share of required funding to the City for the acquisition and delivery of treated potable water supplies to the Project site.” It is noted that FID has indicated that “If treated surface water will be used, the City must acquire additional water from a water purveyor, such as FID for that purpose, so as to not reduce water supplies to or create water supply deficits in other areas of the City.

Water supply issues must be resolved before any further "hardening" of the water supply demand is allowed to take place.”
• FID NOP Bullet #6: This comment is noted, the City of Clovis desires to continue working with FID to address water supply issues for development outside of the 3289
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North 2.0-37 FID service area. The City will continue towards finding solutions to minimize the impacts of changes in land uses and to mitigate any existing adverse water supply impacts within the development areas.
• FID NOP Bullet #7: This comment is noted, FID's Enterprise No. 109 runs northwesterly and crosses Fowler Avenue approximately 1,200 feet southeast of the subject property, Sunnyside Avenue approximately 480 feet south of the subject property, and Shepherd Avenue approximately 580 feet west of the subject property, as shown on the attached FID exhibit map. Should this project include any street and/or utility improvements along Sunnyside Avenue, Shepherd Avenue, or in the vicinity of this facility, FID requires it review and approve all plans.
• FID NOP Bullet #8: This comment is noted. Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District’s Big Dry Creek No. 150 runs southwesterly and traverse the proposed development, FID recommends reaching out to FMFCD for further comments.

Response A-2: The comment is the NOP comment letter that was previously submitted by the commentor. As noted in Response A-1, this letter is included an Appendix A in the Draft EIR. Additionally, Response A-1 includes individual responses to the eight individual comments that were provided in the NOP comment letter. No further response to this comment is warranted.
3290
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

2.0-38 Final Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North B-1
3291
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North 2.0-39 Response to Letter B: Charles Belemjian, Resident of Clovis Response B-1: The commentor provides a brief paragraph identifying their place of residence, and outlining their concerns. Their concerns include traffic volume and traffic speed on Sunnyside Avenue between Shepherd and Nees. The commenter suggests a turnabout or turn around located at the intersection of Teague and Sunnyside. • A few of the concerns in this comment are addressed in Master Response 7, 8, and 9. The TIA includes contribution of traffic from all future developments that would add traffic to the TIA study area. As such, the traffic improvements recommended as part of this study accounts for cumulative traffic impact from all future projects, as well as the proposed project. Additionally, the traffic analysis takes into consideration the effects of school traffic under existing and future long-range conditions. The improvements proposed in the study would help address the traffic congestion issues from all future developments, as well as school related traffic within the project vicinity. This includes both vehicular and non-motorized traffic issues as described in the TIA.

Currently, there is no signalized control along Sunnyside Avenue between Perrin Avenue and Alluvial Avenue. Among the major intersections along this corridor, the intersection of Sunnyside Avenue/Shepherd Avenue is an all-way stopcontrolled intersection, Sunnyside Avenue/Teague Avenue is a two-way stopcontrolled intersection, and Sunnyside Avenue/Nees Avenue is an all-way stopcontrolled intersection.

Signals at the intersection of Sunnyside Avenue/Shepherd Avenue, and Sunnyside Avenue/Nees Avenue, along with other improvements at these locations, are in the City’s Development Impact Fee program. As such, with implementation of these improvements along this corridor, the corridor is anticipated to experience improved traffic flow, and alleviate current safety concerns. This is after account ting for the traffic from the project and other adjacent projects in the vicinity. The City will be implementing these improvements when warranted but not as a requirement of the project.

The project also will be implementing several project design features that will help eliminate gaps in the pedestrian circulation network around the project site.

As part of project frontage improvement, the project will be constructing sidewalks, curb and gutter along Sunnyside Avenue and Shepherd Avenue, Fordham Avenue, and Heirloom Avenue and dedicate space for bike lanes along Shepherd Avenue. Additionally, installing signals with pedestrian crossings have been recommended to enhance, pedestrian safety in the neighborhood. This includes a signal that has been proposed at the intersection of Sunnyside Avenue/Shepherd Avenue (southwest corner of the project site), which will help 3292
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

2.0-40 Final Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North pedestrians accessing the Dry Creek trailhead safely with designated crosswalks at this location.

In addition, Shepherd Avenue will be constructed curb to curb between Sunnyside and Fowler Avenue including a trail/sidewalk along the north side of Shepherd Avenue and bike lanes along this segment of Shepherd Avenue. This will enhance both vehicular safety and pedestrian safety along this corridor.

The project proposes to connect to the existing roundabout at the northerly project location along Sunnyside Avenue. Additionally, sidewalks and bike lanes will be constructed along the project frontage on Shepherd Avenue, Sunnyside Avenue, and Fordham Avenue. Addition of these project design features would help in traffic calming as well as enhance safety around the project site.

The project will be implementing several project design features around the project site that will improve safety for children. As part of project frontage improvement, the project will be constructing sidewalks, curb and gutter along Sunnyside Avenue, Shepherd Avenue, Heirloom Avenue, and Fordham Avenue, and dedicate space for bike lanes along Shepherd Avenue. Additionally, installing signals with pedestrian crossings at the intersection of Sunnyside Avenue/Shepherd Avenue (southwest corner of the project site), will help pedestrians accessing the Dry Creek trailhead safely with designated crosswalks at this location. As such, implementation of the signal and said sidewalks would help address speeding and safety issues along these corridors. 3293
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North 2.0-41 C-1
C-2
C-3
3294
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

2.0-42 Final Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North Response to Letter C: Robert and Kathy Shuman, Residents of Clovis Response C-1: The commentor provides a brief paragraph identifying their place of residence, and outlining three concerns. (Note: the first concern is addressed in this response, and the other two concerns are addressed in the following responses.) The first concern is that there should not be any outlet from the development on to Stanford in the back. This would create more traffic in our neighborhood. It is already too busy and very difficult to exit the area from Ticonderoga and Fowler.
• The first concern is regarding traffic, which is addressed in Master Response 6, and 13. Specifically, the comment concerns outlets/access, and too much traffic.

Access to the project from existing streets will be provided by four driveways: two on Sunnyside Avenue, one on Perrin Road (Stanford/Perrin), and one on Shepherd Avenue. Except for the driveways on Shepherd Avenue and Perrin, all other project driveways will operate as full-access driveways. The driveway on Shepherd Avenue will operate as a Right-In Right-Out/Left-In (RIRO/LI) driveway, since Shepherd Avenue has a speed limit of 40 MPH along the project frontage and estimated to have significant amount of through traffic. The driveway at Stanford/Perrin is a requirement of the City of Clovis Fire Department, it provides secondary access to the gated subdivision. The driveway at Stanford/Perrin will be an exit only driveway to the 101-lot gated subdivision and will provide emergency access. Because this point has limited access to major thoroughfares, it is not anticipated to generate significant traffic and the TIA has estimated approximately 10% to use this egress.

New traffic will be generated by the future residents of the 605 single-family residences. The DEIR identifies the traffic that would be generated by the proposed Project, including trips and vehicle miles traveled. The proposed Project does not propose any land use atypical to the area, or any land use that is estimated to change the neighborhood traffic pattern. The trip distribution pattern from the proposed Project is expected to be similar to the neighborhood trip patterns. Implementation of recommended improvements as included in the TIA would help alleviate traffic congestion and safety related issues within the project vicinity, as well as existing and future residential communities in the area.

The traffic improvements recommended as part of the TIA accounts for 3295
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North 2.0-43 cumulative traffic impact from all future projects, as well as the proposed Project.

Additionally, the traffic analysis takes into consideration the effects of school traffic under existing and future long-range conditions. The improvements proposed in the TIA would help address the traffic congestion issues from all future developments, as well as school related traffic within the project vicinity.

This includes both vehicular and non-motorized traffic issues as described in the TIA.

Response C-2: The commentor second concern is having two story houses backing up to our property. I think this is a reasonable request and hopefully something you guys can do. • The project is not proposed as a pre-plotted subdivision that identifies specific housing architecture or floor plans on each lot. For example, it has not been decided whether a one- or two-story residence would be built backing up to the commenter’s residence. The zoning code dictates the development standards for zones throughout the City, and it will dictate the standards that apply to the proposed subdivision. One- and two-story residences are allowed up to the height limits defined in the zone. The concept of limiting the height of homes backing up to the commenter’s residence can be presented as a concept for the Applicant to consider, but City’s zoning code does not restrict the height to a one story. Under any circumstances, the project will be consistent with the City Codes, including requirements for building height, setbacks and screening, all of which are designed to create an orderly interface between different uses. This concern does not present an environmental impact pursuant to CEQA.

Response C-3: The commentor third concern is regarding water. The commenter mentioned that their well was very dry by September last year and they are concerned that the project will be pulling water from their groundwater. The commenter notes that water will always be an issue for them as them see many neighbors trucking in water daily. • The third concern is regarding water, which is addressed in detail under Master Response 3, 4, and 5. Groundwater and water supply is addressed in DEIR Section

The City’s system contains more than 30 wells with a total capacity of approximately 37,690 gallons per minute with another 4,750 gpm of additional capacity planned in the next few years. Existing wells are not evenly distributed 3296
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

2.0-44 Final Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North across the service area, but rather generally located in the western one-half of the City of Clovis. In general, older wells are in the southwest quarter of the City and the newest wells are located to the northwest quarter of the City. The northern portion of the City of Clovis (north of Herndon Avenue), has experienced the highest growth in recent years, and has dramatically shifted the production and demand characteristics of the City’s water system. (Provost & Pritchard, 2017).

In 2020, recharge was 5,316 AF, while the City’s 30-year average groundwater recharge quantity is approximately 8,412 AFY. In the past 30 years, the groundwater table has dropped 48 feet, from a depth of 92 feet in 1991 to a depth of 140 feet in 2019. Recharge efforts began in 1974, and in 2004, the City began utilizing surface water with the goal of reducing groundwater extraction.

Recharge efforts by the City have not been enough to stem the decline as the basin is shared with other users who either don’t recharge or inadequately recharge. (Provost & Pritchard, 2021B).

Since the 2015 UWMP, SGMA has become effective and the City is working collaboratively with other agencies reliant on the groundwater basin to reach sustainable management of the groundwater aquifer prior to 2040, as required.

The supply from groundwater sources has been modified to reflect this change in the City’s supply portfolio. In the 2010 and 2015 UWMPs, the City’s groundwater supplies were shown to be increasing with population growth into the future. The historical volume of groundwater pumped by the City from 2016 to 2020 ranged from 10,956 in 2019 to as high as 13,187 in 2016. In 2020, the City extracted 12,105 AF and conducted 5,316 AF of intentional recharge activities, which put the net extraction below the sustainable yield. It is presently understood that 9,400 AF per year can be sustainably used from the aquifer. (Provost & Pritchard, 2021B). The City’s 30-year average groundwater recharge quantity is approximately 8,412 AFY. The projected groundwater supply in the 2020 UWMP shows it decreasing to the estimated sustainable amount of 9,400 AFY. (Provost & Pritchard, 2021B). The overall water supply is met with an increase in surface and recycled water sources to offset the reduced use of groundwater resources.

It is noted that in response to public comments regarding groundwater concerns, the Applicant retained Kenneth D. Schmidt and Associates to prepare a supplementary analysis of the groundwater conditions in the vicinity of the Project Site. The conclusion of the report is that the proposed project would use water from the City of Clovis distribution system as opposed to on-site wells. In terms of groundwater, there would be an overall reduction in groundwater pumpage of about 400 acre-feet per year. This would be beneficial to the local groundwater supplies. The full report is included in Section 3.0 Errata. 3297
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North 2.0-45 D-1
3298
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

2.0-46 Final Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North D-1 Cont.
3299
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North 2.0-47 Response to Letter D: Judie Henry, Resident of Clovis
Response D-1: The commentor provides a several email communications between the commenter and the City. The general concerns are with traffic, water bills, water waste, and a neighborhood meeting.
• These concerns are addressed in Master Response 3, 4, 5, 6, and 8. 3300
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

2.0-48 Final Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North E-1
E-2
3301
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North 2.0-49 E-2 Cont.
3302
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

2.0-50 Final Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North Response to Letter E: Eric Poulsen, MD, Resident of Clovis Response E-1: The commentor provides a discussion describing their opposition to the Project. The commenter notes that recent nearby development has caused impacts including noise pollution, more car pollution, more traffic congestion, more neighborhood foot traffic, and a degradation in the water supply. The commenter notes that they are surprised by the apparent pace of the City in rushing this process through, particularly with no systematic evaluation of the impact to local water supply. They also note the late notification of the upcoming meeting is preventing many of the neighborsfrom attending, but all those they’ve talked to have the same sentiments.

The topics of noise, air quality (car pollution), traffic congestion, and degradation of water supply are addressed in the Draft EIR in Sections 3.3 Air Quality, 3.9 Hydrology and Water Quality, 3.11 Noise, 3.13 Transportation and Circulation, and 3.14 Utilities. These topics are also discussed in additional detail in Master Response 3, 4, 5, 6, and 10. The reference to the meeting is addressed in Master Response 15.

The TIA includes contribution of traffic from all future developments that would add traffic to the TIA study area. As such, the traffic improvements recommended as part of this study accounts for cumulative traffic impact from all future projects, as well as the proposed project. Additionally, the traffic analysis takes into consideration the effects of school traffic under existing and future longrange conditions. The improvements proposed in the study would help address the traffic congestion issues from all future developments, as well as school related traffic within the project vicinity. This includes both vehicular and nonmotorized traffic issues as described in the TIA.

The comment regarding “more neighborhood foot traffic” is not fully clear. It would be expected that pedestrian traffic would occur by residents within the proposed project. Pedestrian traffic in existing neighborhoods to the north and east of the Project site are not expected to significantly change from the existing condition as there is not a clear destination within or beyond those existing residential neighborhoods. The project will be implementing several project design features that will help eliminate gaps in the pedestrian circulation network around the project site. As part of project frontage improvement, the project will be constructing sidewalks, curb and gutter along Sunnyside Avenue and Shepherd 3303
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North 2.0-51 Avenue, Fordham Avenue, and Heirloom Avenue and dedicate space for bike lanes along Shepherd Avenue. Additionally, installing signals with pedestrian crossings have been recommended to enhance, pedestrian safety in the neighborhood. This includes a signal that has been proposed at the intersection of Sunnyside Avenue/Shepherd Avenue (southwest corner of the project site), which will help pedestrians accessing the Dry Creek trailhead safely with designated crosswalks at this location.

Response E-2: The commentor commenter notes that the biggest impact they are experiencing already is loss of water. They note that the removal of the irrigated almonds to the west of their block and the underway removal of the pecans south and east of them has resulted in many of our wells going dry. The commenter notes that they had to drill a new well last week. They note that removing this large swath of agricultural land, of irrigated and permeable surface area, has eliminated the natural and historic recharge of wells. • This concern is addressed in Master Response 3, 4, and 5. Groundwater, recharge, agricultural irrigation, and past agriculture is discussed in the Master Responses.

The commenter notes that they would consider removing their strong opposition for the annexation only if two conditions can be satisfied: 1) the Wilson development include a large water recharge basin and 2) the City (and or Wilson) choreograph and pay for bringing a city water line to the edges of the properties being annexed. • The project does not propose condition 1 or condition 2 as presented by the commenter. Master Response 3, 4, and 5 provides detailed discussion of groundwater extraction and recharge. Also, it should be noted that SOI expansion of the non-development area allows for future annexation of the non3304 AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

2.0-52 Final Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North development area into the City of Clovis if desired by the property owners. If annexed, the properties could be served by City water. However, annexing these properties and providing City water is not currently proposed. The commenter’s strong opposition is noted and will be provided to the City Council for their consideration.
3305
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North 2.0-53 F-3
F-2
F-1
3306
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

2.0-54 Final Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North F-3 Cont.

F-4
3307
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North 2.0-55 Response to Letter F: Jill Poulsen, Resident of Clovis
Response F-1: The commentor provides a brief paragraph identifying their family, home, and lifestyle in Clovis. They describe their opposition to the Project and annexation. The comment also notes concerns with the rate of growth, urban sprawl, uncontrolled traffic, animal populations, and water.
• Water is addressed in Master Response 1 through 5. Traffic is discussed in Master Response 6 through 13. Annexation is addressed in Master Response 14. It is noted that one of the objectives of the project is to establish a mix of housing to provide for local and regional housing demand, and consistent with the City requirements in the latest Regional Housing Needs Analysis (RHNA). In light of the Legislature’s repeated determinations in recent years that California is facing a statewide housing crisis, the State has provided the City with good reason to exercise its legislative discretion to facilitate the construction of new housing.

Government Code section 65889.5, subdivision (a)(1)(A), states that “[t]he lack of housing, including emergency shelters, is a critical problem that threatens the economic, environmental, and social quality of life in California.” Subdivision (a)(1)(D) of that section adds that “[m]any local governments do not give adequate attention to the economic, environmental, and social costs of decisions that result in disapproval of housing development projects, reduction in density of housing projects, and excessive standards for housing development projects.” The proposed Project is not considered urban sprawl, rather it is the last remaining property in agricultural use in an area surrounded by urban and Rural Residential uses.

Response F-2: The commentor provides a discussion of water concerns at their property, and their recent need to truck water in at a great cost. They also note that they needed to recently have a new well installed at a depth of 600 feet. They note their concern with the lack of recharge of the groundwater as a result of orchards being converted to impervious surfaces.
• The water concerns noted in this comment are addressed in Master Response 3, 4, and 5.

Response F-3: The commenter notes that they would consider removing their strong opposition for the annexation only if the City brought water to the property lines of the properties being annexed. They note that it is not realistic to expect the neighborhood to pay for the water service to these properties.
• Master Response 14 provides detailed discussion of annexation/SOI expansion. For clarification, an annexation involves an adjustment to the city limit line to bring land into the incorporated city limits. This involves shifting the governmental jurisdiction from unincorporated Fresno County to the incorporated City of Clovis. An SOI 3308
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

2.0-56 Final Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North expansion is not synonymous with an annexation. Instead, an SOI expansion, or SOI boundary change, simply adjusts an SOI boundary that is intended to be benchmark for future annexations. The non-development area is not proposed for annexation into the City. Rather, it is proposed to be included in the City’s SOI, which would make it eligible for annexation at some future time. A future annexation of the nondevelopment area would require the property owners of those parcels to organize and agree to be annexed into the City, which has not been done as part of the current proposal. Additionally, it does not appear that the current sentiment from parcel owners in the non-development area would be supportive of annexation into the City at this time. It is noted, however, that the SOI expansion, which does not require the approval of the parcel owners, would allow for future annexation of the nondevelopment area into the City of Clovis if desired by the property owners at some later date. If the SOI expansion were approved, the non-development area would remain in the unincorporated County, but would be within the City’s SOI. If annexed at some future time, the parcels could be served by City water and sewer. However, annexing these parcels and providing City water and sewer services is not currently proposed. The commenter’s strong opposition is noted and will be provided to the City Council for their consideration.

Response F-4: The commenter provides a closing statement reiterating their opposition unless water is brought to each property. They also note that they were not able to attend the neighborhood meeting.
• Master Response 15 provides a detailed discussion of the neighborhood meeting. 3309
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North 2.0-57 G-1
G-2
3310
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

2.0-58 Final Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North Response to Letter G: Hedieh and Neal Goodwin, Residents of Clovis Response G-1: The commentor stated that they received a letter from Lorren Smith post-marked August 9th to attend a meeting on August 30th to review the neighborhood overdevelopment of the project now called TM6205. They note that such a short notice precludes them from attending this crucial meeting. They note that since they are rendered unable to attend, they have responded in writing with their concerns.
• This concern is addressed in Master Response 15.

The commenter continues by indicating that they were notified by Leo Wilson in 2019 of his intent to develop the current acreage of the Pecan farms with 200-300 homes. They note that his presentation was in stark contrast to the current proposal. They note that during that meeting, Mr. Wilson informed several homeowners that their homes will be worth nothing unless they signed on to his proposal with the City of Clovis and put petitions to sign before them. The commenter notes that they moved to the neighborhood from Fresno specifically for the rural setting and the belief that Clovis stood for peaceful, lawful, and organized community where a family could thrive. This behavior was shocking, and I was certain that it would not be supported. The commenter also notes that they were also told later by communications through the City of Clovis that the City would only annex blocks of neighborhoods as not to create dysfunctional islands devoid of City services.
• These concerns are noted. The Project that is proposed by the Applicant is defined in Section 2.0 Project Description of the Draft EIR. The environmental impacts of the project are discussed throughout the various EIR sections. Topics surrounding the desirability of rural living, and community values are important social topics, but they fall outside the scope of an EIR as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act. These important concerns, however, will be provided to the City Council for their consideration.

Section 3.10-6 discusses annexations, including the role of Fresno LAFCo. Page

3.10-6 indicates that Fresno LAFCo is responsible for coordinating orderly reorganization to local jurisdictional boundaries, including annexations. Any annexation of the Project site to the City is subject to LAFCo approval, and LAFCo will review proposed annexations for consistency with LAFCo’s Annexation Policies and Procedures.

The DEIR indicates that the proposed Project includes an amendment of the City’s SOI to include the entirety the approximately 155-acre Project site. The area is currently located in the City’s Planning Area, but outside of the City’s SOI. The amendment of the City’s SOI will require an application and approval by the Fresno LAFCo. The SOI amendment would be reviewed by the City and LAFCo 3311
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North 2.0-59 prior to proceeding with the requested annexation. If the SOI Amendment is approved, the Project would then be able to begin the annexation process.

The proposed annexation includes lands contiguous with the current City limits and parcels that would be within the expanded SOI. It is noted, though as the commenter indicates, that parcels proposed for annexation would involve the creation of an island of unincorporated territory to the south of the site. It is noted that LAFCo may approve an annexation that creates an island where it finds that the application of this policy would be detrimental to the orderly development of the community and that a reasonable effort has been made to include the island in the annexation, but that inclusion is not feasible at this time.

The island area is designated as Focus Area 7 in the General Plan, and is located within the Herndon – Shepherd Specific Plan Area. The General Plan identifies Focus Area 7 for Residential Use, which would require all proposed projects within Focus Area 7 to be consistent with the Dry Creek Preserve Master Plan if it were to be annexed into the City. This area is currently within the SOI, but the property owners in Focus Area 7 do not currently desire to annex into the City.

The City has continued to plan for orderly growth to the north of the City, including the area that includes the Project site.

Master Response 14 provides detailed discussion of annexation. For clarification, the Development Area is proposed for annexation, while the Non-development Area is not proposed for annexation. This means that the Development Area would receive City services once annexed, and the Non-development Area would be eligible for annexation at some future time. A future annexation of the Nondevelopment area would require the property owners of those parcels to organize and agree to be annexed into the City, which has not been done as part of the current proposal. Additionally, it does not appear that the current sentiment from parcel owners in the non-development area would be supportive of annexation into the City at this time. It is noted, however, that the SOI expansion, which does not require the approval of the parcel owners, would allow for future annexation of the non-development area into the City of Clovis if desired by the property owners at some later date. If the SOI expansion were approved, the non-development area would remain in the unincorporated County, but would be within the City’s SOI. If annexed at some future time, the parcels could be served by City water and sewer. However, annexing these parcels and providing City water and sewer services is not currently proposed.

The commenter notes that they are foolishly optimistic and will not spend time discussing the traffic impact of the residents of the future Lennar and Wilson homes all descending on the 4-way country stop sign on Sunnyside and Shephard Aves, the lack of green space 3312
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

2.0-60 Final Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North nor the myriad of issues that will accompany the rapid construction of 1000 homes around said area.
• Concerns regarding traffic are addressed in Master Response 6 through 13. The project proposes to construct 605 single-family residences. The surrounding areas in the neighborhood also mostly constitute of similar single-family residential developments. Additionally, several new projects within the area also proposes single-family residential developments. As such, the project does not propose any land use atypical to the area, or any land use that is estimated to change the neighborhood traffic pattern. Therefore, trip generation and distribution pattern from the project is also expected to be similar to the neighborhood trip patterns. In fact, implementation of recommended improvements as included in the TIA would help alleviate traffic congestion and safety related issues within the project vicinity, as well as existing and future residential communities in the area.

The project will be implementing several project design features that will help eliminate gaps in the pedestrian circulation network around the project site. As part of project frontage improvement, the project will be constructing sidewalks, curb and gutter along Sunnyside Avenue and Shepherd Avenue, Fordham Avenue, and Heirloom Avenue and dedicate space for bike lanes along Shepherd Avenue. Additionally, installing signals with pedestrian crossings have been recommended to enhance, pedestrian safety in the neighborhood. This includes a signal that has been proposed at the intersection of Sunnyside Avenue/Shepherd Avenue (southwest corner of the project site), which will help pedestrians accessing the Dry Creek trailhead safely with designated crosswalks at this location.

COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North 2.0-61 The project proposes to connect to the existing roundabout at the northerly project location along Sunnyside Avenue. Additionally, sidewalks and bike lanes will be constructed along the project frontage on Shepherd Avenue, Sunnyside Avenue, and Fordham Avenue. Addition of these project design features would help in traffic calming as well as enhance safety around the project site.

Concerns regarding parks/greenspace are addressed in Master Response 16.

Section 2.0 Project Description presents the parks/greenspace that is proposed, and Section 3.12 Public Services and Recreation provides an analysis of the proposal relative to the park requirements. It should be noted that the proposed Project includes the development of open space totaling approximately 5.54 acres, including 2.25 acres of trails, 2.39 acres of promenade/pedestrian circulation, and 0.90 acres of parks as described in DEIR Section 2.0 Project Description. The main park would be located within the central portion of the Development Area, which would connect to a network of promenades and trails located within and along the perimeter of a portion of the Development Area.

The promenade and trail network would also link to adjacent trails located in the planned residential community to the west, as well as the Dry Creek Trail and Clovis Old Town Trail to the south.

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

2.0-62 Final Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North developable area within the sphere of influence. In accordance with the Municipal Code, fees are deposited in specific funds that shall be used solely for the acquisition, improvement and expansion of public parks and recreation facilities as outlined in the park acquisition and improvement fee update. As a results of the requirement, the Project will dedicate the proposed parkland and pay an in-lieu fee for the difference in accordance with the Clovis Municipal Code Chapter 3.04. This is consistent with State law and the City’s requirements for parkland dedication and in-lieu fee payments for parkland.

Response G-2: The commentor indicates that their only focus at this time is access to water. The previous agricultural lands (previous almond orchards currently Lennar homes and current pecan orchard) served as a recharge for the local ground water, without which our wells have and will continue to fail. They state that planning for and providing City utilities has to be done at this time while the City is allowing for TM6205 to proceed up to their doorstep.

They suggest that the homes bordered by Sunnyside and Perrin Aves and those along Fowler will have to be included in the expansion of Sphere of Influence of the City of Clovis if TM6205 is to be allowed to proceed. They note that they would need access to City utilities equal to that provided to project TM6205. They suggest that planning and providing City utilities to citizens is the purview of city governance and that the private citizens in the homes mentioned above cannot be expected to form a governing body and independently apply for City utilities. The commenter indicates that putting them in a situation to have no access to potable water is inhumane and unethical and that the only common-sense action to take is to extend City services to their homes at the same time that all the infrastructure is being placed to accommodate TM6205. • Concerns regarding water are addressed in Master Response 3, 4, and 5. Concerns regarding annexation and the provision of City utility services are addressed in Master Response 14.
3315
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North 2.0-63 H-1
3316
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

2.0-64 Final Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North Response to Letter H: Brian and Cindy Reinke, Residents of Clovis Response H-1: The commentor provides a brief introduction, notes their place of residence, and how long they have lived at the residence. The commenter then indicates that they are currently out of town and cannot attend today’s meeting (the neighborhood meeting). • Concerns the neighborhood meeting are addressed in Master Response 15.

The commenter notes that they have seen their water supply diminish, especially after Mr. Wilson stopped watering the pecans two years ago. They note that watering of the pecan trees naturally replenishes their wells and that they are now having to order water 3 times a week with the cost of $750.00 per week. They indicated that if development occurs rainwater will be diverted away via storm drains leaving them with zero recharge for their water. The commenter concludes that they must be annexed into the City of Clovis and have City utilities for this project to go forward. • Concerns regarding water are addressed in Master Response 3, 4, and 5. Concerns regarding annexation and the provision of City utility services are addressed in Master Response 14.
3317
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North 2.0-65 I-2
I-3
I-1
3318
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

2.0-66 Final Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North Response to Letter I: Curtis and Pamela Cookingham, Residents of Clovis Response I-1: The commentor provides a brief paragraph describing where they live, the history of the residence in the neighborhood, and the encroachment of development over time. This comment is largely an introduction to the following two comments which more fully detail the commenters concerns.
• These introductory statements are noted. There is no response warranted.

Response I-2: The commentor states the following: “My biggest concern and opposition to this latest project (as with the Lennar project), is water. I continue to watch my neighbors drill new wells with marginal results and I personally have water delivered to my home 2 times/week in the summer at the cost of nearly $500.00/week. Construction to the west and now the possibility of construction to the south and East WILL HAVE A NEGATIVE IMPACT ON THE QUAIL RUN WATER SUPPLY. Our county development has relied on natural processes of replenishing our underground water supply for 30+ years. If this next phase of development is allowed to proceed to the south and east of us, we will be an isolated island. Access to water will be more of a challenge and more cost. My family and my neighbors moved to this development to city get away from the city, but the city is now in our backyards. We will soon be staring at cinder block fences and houses that are built very close together.”
Concerns regarding water are addressed in Master Response 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5.

Master Response 14 provides detailed discussion of annexation. A future annexation of the Non-development area would require the property owners of those parcels to organize and agree to be annexed into the City, which has not been done as part of the current proposal. Additionally, it does not appear that the current sentiment from parcel owners in the non-development area would be supportive of annexation into the City at this time. It is noted, however, that the SOI expansion, would allow for future annexation of the Non-development area into the City of Clovis if desired by the property owners at some later date.

The proposed annexation includes lands contiguous with the current City limits and parcels that would be within the expanded SOI. It is noted that parcels proposed for annexation would involve the creation of an island of unincorporated territory to the south of the site. It is noted that LAFCo may approve an annexation that creates an island where it finds that the application of this policy would be detrimental to the orderly development of the community 3319
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North 2.0-67 and that a reasonable effort has been made to include the island in the annexation, but that inclusion is not feasible at this time. The island area is designated as Focus Area 7 in the General Plan, and is located within the Herndon – Shepherd Specific Plan Area. The General Plan identifies Focus Area 7 for Residential Use, which would require all proposed projects within Focus Area 7 to be consistent with the Dry Creek Preserve Master Plan if it were to be annexed into the City. This area is currently within the SOI, but the property owners in Focus Area 7 do not currently desire to annex into the City. The City has continued to plan for orderly growth to the north of the City, including the area that includes the Project site.

Response I-3: The commentor states the following: “I am a strong “NO” vote for this project. Coupled with the Lennar project to our west - there is a sense that the Wilson project “is being shoved down our throats”. This is not “the Clovis way of life” any more. I have witnessed the road closures and watched the pecans being bulldozed, so it seems like the city City of Clovis and Wilson Homes are further along than indicated in the letter that announced the meeting 8-30-23. If this is true and the ‘fix is in”, then I want to make sure there is a resolution or agreement between the developers and the officials who are elected to represent us to give us a simple and extremely cost-effective option for access to city water. If we are left a county island - well water access will continue to diminish and property values will drop. Providing access to water is a reasonable compromise to the sidewalks, hard scape, traffic, noise, dust, lights, and high density housing that is pressing in around us. It’s a reasonable compromise for rural life being transformed to city life.” • Concerns regarding water are addressed in Master Response 3, 4, and 5. Concerns regarding the provision of City utility services are addressed in Master Response

14. Concerns regarding county islands is addressed in Response I-2. The balance of the topics discussed in this comment express the commenter opposition to the Project, which is noted and will be provided to the City for their consideration. 3320
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

2.0-68 Final Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North J-1
3321
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North 2.0-69 3322
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

2.0-70 Final Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North Response to Letter J: Robert Shuman 2, Resident of Clovis Response J-1: The commentor provides a brief paragraph identifying their address. They indicate that they were at the neighborhood meeting. They indicate that they have concerns with an exit in the back of the development, traffic on Fowler, safety with children playing in the neighborhood. They suggest a fire gate being more appropriate. They also indicated that they were concerned with privacy, and suggest that one story homes should back up to the northern border. Lastly, they note that their property is a flood plain and that it is vital that all water runoff away from their property.
• Concerns regarding floodplains and drainage are addressed in Master Response 1 and 2. Concerns regarding traffic are addressed under Master Response 6 through 13. The project will have four separate access points. As such, in case of any fire related events, Firefighters can access the project through multiple access points around the project site. Therefore, the project is not estimated to have any fire related access concerns. Access to the project from existing streets will be provided by four driveways: two on Sunnyside Avenue, one on Perrin Road, and one on Shepherd Avenue. Except for the driveways on Shepherd Avenue and Perrin, all other project driveways will operate as full-access driveways. The driveway on Shepherd Avenue will operate as a Right-In Right-Out/Left-In (RIRO/LI) driveway, since Shepherd Avenue has a speed limit of 40 MPH along the project frontage and estimated to have significant amount of through traffic. The driveway on Perrin will be an exit only driveway and will provide emergency access. The project is estimated to add only nominal trips on Perrin Road.

Stanford or Ticonderoga from the driveway on Perrin Road. This is because, due to the local circulation network and location of activity centers in relation to the project, majority of the project traffic is estimated to travel south using Shepherd Avenue on to Clovis Avenue, Sunnyside Avenue, and Fowler Avenue. As included in the TIA, a sight distance analysis was conducted for all driveways to determine adequacy of sight for safe maneuver at the driveways using California Highway Design Manual (HDM) recommended methodology. As such, all the proposed project driveways achieve the adequate sight distances and have clear sight triangles for the drivers along the project frontage. As stated previously, the project is estimated to add only nominal traffic along Perrin, Stanford, or Ticonderoga, and will connect to a roundabout at the northerly project driveway along Sunnyside Avenue. Additionally, sidewalks and bike lanes will be constructed along the project frontage on Shepherd Avenue and Sunnyside Avenue. Addition of these project design features would help in traffic calming as well as enhance safety around the project site and within the neighborhood.

Concerns regarding the neighborhood meeting are addressed in Master Response

15. Regarding the commenter’s preference for one story lots along the northern 3323
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North 2.0-71 border, the proposed Project is not proposed as a pre-plotted subdivision that identifies specific housing architecture or floor plans on each lot. For example, we do not have any knowledge of whether a one- or two-story residence would be built backing up to the commenter’s residence. The zoning code dictates the development standards for zones throughout the City, and it will dictate the standards that apply to the proposed subdivision. One- and two-story residences are allowed up to the height limits defined in the zone. The concept of limiting the height of homes backing up to the commenter’s residence can be presented as a concept for the Applicant to consider, but City’s zoning code does not restrict the height to a one story. This concern does not present an environmental impact pursuant to CEQA.
3324
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

2.0-72 Final Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North K-1
K-2
3325
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North 2.0-73 K-2 Cont.
3326
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

2.0-74 Final Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North Response to Letter K: Julie A. Vance, California Department of Fish and Wildlife Response K-1: The commentor provides a brief introductory paragraph and indicates that after reviewing the provided CEQA document, CDFW has determined that the mitigation measures as currently documented in the DEIR are sufficient for mitigation of impacts to listed species. The commenter provides details regarding relocations, inadvertent takes, and needs for ITPs.
• This comment is noted. The Draft EIR includes discussion regarding the potential for take of special status species, and the appropriate mitigation for avoiding take. The Draft EIR also discusses regulations that call for ITPs in the event of an impacts to a special status species. No further response to this comment is warranted in the EIR.

Response K-2: The commentor provides several paragraphs with statutory details regarding environmental determinations, field surveys, database records, and filing fees. • This comment is noted. Filing fees would be paid according to the statutory requirements. The biologists performing surveys work within the requirements of the CNDDB, and provide survey forms to the CNDDB when species occurrences are documented. No further response to this comment is warranted in the EIR. 3327
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North 2.0-75 L-2
L-3
L-1
3328
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

2.0-76 Final Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North L-3 Cont.

L-4
L-5
3329
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North 2.0-77 L-6
3330
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

2.0-78 Final Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North Response to Letter L: Patrick Menagh, Resident of Clovis Response L-1: The commentor provides a brief paragraph describing their general concerns with the project, and that they wanted to voice the concerns to the Planning Commission. The comment serves as an introduction to a more detailed discussion of the concerns in the following comments.
• This comment is noted and will be provided to the City for consideration. No further response to this comment is warranted in the EIR.

Response L-2: The commentor states the following: “Water – All our wells have been impacted by the development that has gone on for the last several years. Developers like to blame drought or even agriculture, which obviously have an impact, but urban development has a long term effect that is permanent. Whether it is the sinking a deep wells to feed the new homes (I believe this was done at Harlan Ranch) or in the case of this development, cover up the ground with asphalt and redistributing the water to a holding pond elsewhere, it hurts our aquifer. Reducing our access to water is an infringement on a basic need and I don’t see any effort by the developer or City to resolve this. In fact, the comment I heard last night when the Wilson folks were asked if they would be putting water infrastructure in our neighborhood was no, that is not our concern nor requirement and a reference to the almighty study that says there will be no significant impact. I heard that similar comment several times last night and frankly it struck me as arrogant and uncaring. Seems to me a better approach would be to say, how can we work together (Developer, City and Residents) to resolve this issue. I get that putting in a water line though are neighborhood costs money, I get that the city would need to annex the neighborhood, I get that there may be some give and take on certain things, but as it stands now Wilson is saying we are not going to do anything here and there’s nothing you can do about it. Is that really an acceptable attitude for the City? I hope not.”
• This comment regarding water is addressed in Master Response 3, 4, and 5. This includes a discussion of groundwater issues, agricultural irrigation, onsite wells, and how the proposed Project would receive water.

Response L-3: The commentor states the following: “During the meeting I heard a comment from the Wilson Home folks that they were “bundling studies together” and it struck me that this project is not proceeding in a normal way and is being fast tracked. It appears the City is deviating from long standing protocols and as a result, the impacts to our property may not be given the thorough investigation they deserve. I for one would like to know if things are being done differently and if so how is it different? The City has an obligation to make sure our interests are being protected and not minimized in the effort to get things done fast. I understand that the City needs to grow and it needs developers to fund projects like the widening of Shepard, however I thought that is what the long range plan was for, that include a significant amount of land between Shepard and Copper? For that matter, this 3331
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North 2.0-79 land was not even in the plan and now it is? There are a lot of exceptions being made here and it concerns me they are at the expense of thoughtful planning and resolution of issues that typically occur.”
• The comment regarding the Neighborhood Meeting is addressed, in part, under Master Response 15. It is noted that the Draft EIR is a result of extensive technical analysis by a team of consultants working closely with City staff since 2021 (over two years). During that time, there was a significant amount of analysis, peer review, design changes, and supplemental analysis necessary to fully analyze the impacts, and reduce or avoid impacts associated with project development. This two-year time frame is inclusive of the environmental review process, but the planning and application process extends even farther back in time. The CEQA process involves the accumulation of numerous technical reports that are summarized in the DEIR. In effect, the CEQA document functions to synthesize numerous technical analyses into a single document that can be distributed out to the public for review for a more simplified review of the technical analyses.

The suggestion that the City is “fast tracking” and that the process is “not normal” is not accurate, as this process is commonplace under CEQA. The City staff has thoroughly examined the details of the application, including the design and the environmental impacts, and will ultimately present their findings to the Planning Commission and City Council for their consideration.

Response L-4: The commentor states the following: “Traffic is a big concern in a couple of ways, one short term and one long term. Short term, we were promised we would have minimal impact due to the current Lennar construction going on around us, however this has been absolutely false! Over the last few years we’ve been effected by road closers, non-local traffic cutting through our neighborhood (faster that they should!), yards torn up, trash falling off trucks, delays getting to work and school, deterioration of our roads not meant for heavy vehicles, dust over everything, etc… Personally I am tired of it, and the City needs to hold the construction companies accountable for doing everything they can to minimize the impact. Long term, with over 600 homes planned, we are going to have a lot more cars cutting through the neighborhood going to Fowler. Once again the Wilson studies say we will feel minimal impact and traffic is going to use Shepard or Sunnyside, but that’s not going to happen. Our neighborhood is in the Clovis North school district and unless these homes are going to be adult only, there will be a lot of Mom’s and Dad’s following the path of least resistance through to the neighborhood to Fowler on their way to drop kids off at school and go to work. When all these folks hit the intersection of Fowler and Ticondaroga and try to merge onto flowing traffic your going to have a lot of accidents (drive it, you’ll see what I mean). In addition, the roads in our neighborhood are not built for traffic especially Stanford which is a narrow curving road with blind corners (drive it, you’ll see what I mean). I have witnessed over the last few years an increase in cars 3332
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

2.0-80 Final Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North avoiding road closures by driving through our neighborhood, way too fast, cutting corners and nearly hit cars and people. My wife, who walks every morning has literally almost been hit on multiple occasions. We have kids playing in front yards and riding bikes through our neighborhood. If someone gets hurt or killed because this was not addressed properly there will be hell to pay. This is no joke and a real issue if not addressed. Also, the increased traffic is going to deteriorate our roads which were not designed to handle it.

Who’s going to pay for the upkeep? My guess is Fresno County and Clovis City are going to point fingers at one another and nothing will get done and we’ll be left holding the bag.”
• This comment regarding traffic is partially addressed in Master Response 6 through 13. The project proposes to construct 605 single-family residences. The surrounding areas in the neighborhood also mostly constitute of similar singlefamily residential developments. Additionally, several new projects within the area also proposes single-family residential developments. As such, the project does not propose any land use atypical to the area, or any land use that is estimated to change the neighborhood traffic pattern. Therefore, trip generation and distribution pattern from the project is also expected to be similar to the neighborhood trip patterns. In fact, implementation of recommended improvements as included in the TIA would help alleviate traffic congestion and safety related issues within the project vicinity, as well as existing and future residential communities in the area.

Also, in the short-term, the City and the project applicant will coordinate to develop a construction management plan for the construction related traffic for the project in the short-term. This will include designated truck routes to and 3333
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North 2.0-81 from the project, along with time restriction for inbound and outbound construction related traffic accessing the neighborhood, to help prevent any short-term traffic related issues within the neighborhood.

In the long term, as identified in the TIA and DEIR, improvements would be required to adjacent roadways within the vicinity of the project. Additionally, the TIA identifies regional circulation improvements that would help alleviate traffic congestion and safety related issues. As included in Table 9-H of the TIA, and the DEIR, the project would be directly implementing circulation improvements around the project site and will be paying appropriate fees to the City for the future implementation of additional roadway widening and intersection improvements within the project study area when warranted. As demonstrated in the TIA, implementation of these improvements would help alleviate local congestion issues and provide safe access to local schools that are under the Clovis Unified School District (CUSD).

The project will be implementing several project design features that will help eliminate gaps in the pedestrian circulation network around the project site. As part of project frontage improvement, the project will be constructing sidewalks, curb and gutter along Sunnyside Avenue and Shepherd Avenue, Fordham Avenue, and Heirloom Avenue and dedicate space for bike lanes along Shepherd Avenue. Additionally, installing signals with pedestrian crossings have been recommended to enhance pedestrian safety in the neighborhood. This includes a signal that has been proposed at the intersection of Sunnyside Avenue/Shepherd Avenue (southwest corner of the project site), which will help pedestrians accessing the Dry Creek trailhead safely with designated crosswalks at this location.

Access: Access to the project from existing streets will be provided by four driveways: two on Sunnyside Avenue, one on Perrin Road (Stanford/Perrin), and one on Shepherd Avenue. Except for the driveways on Shepherd Avenue and Perrin, all other project driveways will operate as full-access driveways. The driveway on Shepherd Avenue will operate as a Right-In Right-Out/Left-In (RIRO/LI) driveway, since Shepherd Avenue has a speed limit of 40 MPH along the project frontage and estimated to have significant amount of through traffic. The driveway at Stanford/Perrin will be an exit only driveway and will provide emergency access. As included in the TIA, a sight distance analysis was conducted for all driveways to determine adequacy of sight for safe maneuver at the 3334
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

2.0-82 Final Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North driveways using California Highway Design Manual (HDM) recommended methodology. As such, all the proposed project driveways achieve the adequate sight distances and have clear sight triangles for the drivers along the project frontage.

Response L-5: The commentor states the following: “Quality of life is my last issue. We all moved into this neighborhood because it was rural, safe and provided us with the lifestyle we wanted when we bought our properties. I know things change, and it’s impossible to insulate yourself from it, but it still impacts us and potentially the values of our homes. This being said, I need a better understanding of what impacts sphere of influence and annexation will have on my property. To date, I’ve heard a lot of different stuff and frankly don’t really understand how these things might affect me and request some clarity from the City about this.”
• This comment regarding sphere of influence and annexation is addressed in Master Response 14. The comment regarding the quality of life and value to their home is a topic that is outside the scope of an environmental document. This is a social and economic topic that will be provided to the City for consideration.

Response L-6: The commentor states the following: “As things stand now, I am very disappointed with how this project has progresses. It’s appears to be on a fast track to the benefit of the builder, at the expense of our neighborhood, and with little to no effort to find solutions to our issues. The arrogance of statements made last night by the Builder Reps like (paraphrasing); “we don’t care what you do”, “it’s not our problem”, “I wouldn’t want to live buy some of the homes in your neighborhood”, “studies show minimal impact”, “we’ll just circumvent to city and put in apartments” all lead me to believe Wilson has no desire to sincerely work with us, they just want to check the boxes and get on with the project. I hope the City feels differently and works to make sure our interests our addressed.” • The comments that express their disappointment with how the Project has progressed is noted. These comments do not address a CEQA topic within the environmental document, but that will be provided to the City for consideration. 3335
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North 2.0-83 M-1
M-2
3336
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

2.0-84 Final Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North M-3
M-4
M-2 Cont.

M-5
3337
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North 2.0-85 M-5 Cont.
3338
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

2.0-86 Final Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North Response to Letter M: Eric Poulsen 2, Resident of Clovis Response M-1: The commentor provides a brief paragraph noting their attendance at the neighborhood meeting, and that they thought the meeting would be run by the City. They note that the discussion increased rather than decreased their concerns. • The comment regarding the neighborhood meeting is addressed in Master Response 15. The City notes the commenters increased concerns.

Response M-2: The commenter then indicates that they understand that the City of Clovis has a vested interest in this project proceeding, but that they hope that some of the staff and planners are still able look closely at their concerns. The comment indicates that the EIR is an example of a document that requires some critical thinking on the part of the City staff, and that some of the evidence and arguments put forth simply don’t jive with the bootson-the-ground reality. The commenter provides the following example: “One obvious example is the assertion that this area just isn’t good farm land. Well, sure, there are some spots that aren’t great nearby. However, the specific parcels in question as well as the parcels developed by Lennar across the street have actually been outstanding farm land.

Just ask Pat Richiutti—his almonds north of Shepherd have performed well for decades before being pulled out. Just ask Alejandro who managed the pecan that Wilson now owns. These have been extremely “fruitful” properties and would still be if not being repurposed. Obviously, a land owner can choose what he or she does with their land. But let the record be clear—this is great farm land.”
• The Draft EIR is a result of extensive technical analysis by a team of consultants working closely with City staff since 2021 (over two years). During that time there was a significant amount of analysis, peer review, design changes, and supplemental analysis necessary to fully analyze the impacts, and reduce or avoid impacts associated with project development.

The Draft EIR on page 3.2-16 indicates that the California Department of Conservation has designated approximately 63.60 acres of the Project site as Prime Farmland and 11.44 acres of the Project site as Farmland of Statewide Importance. This is reflected on Figure 3.2-1. Land designated as such generally consists of the qualities that make a site good farmland. However, the Draft EIR also indicates on page 3.2-16, that the California Department of Conservation notes that these designations do not necessarily reflect all relevant factors for agricultural production, and that they developed the Land Evaluation and Site Assessment (LESA) to evaluate the significance of the agricultural conversions such as what is proposed. The City utilized the LESA model to evaluate the sitespecific characteristics more closely, and after evaluating the site-specific soil characteristics, project size, surrounding uses, agricultural protection zones, water resources availability, and ongoing economic feasibility of agricultural 3339
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North 2.0-87 operations utilizing the LESA Model, the model showed that the conversion of the land on the Project site is not a significant impact according to the Department of Conservation thresholds. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would have a less than significant impact relative to agricultural conversion. This environmental conclusion considers site specific characteristics such as the existence of a hardpan within the upper horizon of the soil profile, the project size, surrounding urban uses, lack of agricultural protection zones in the zone of influence, lack of water resources, and ongoing economic feasibility of agricultural operations due to other factors. While farming has historically occurred on the Project site, and on adjacent properties before they too were developed, it currently is an economic challenge to farm the Project site based on the current circumstances of urbanization and an insecure water source for irrigation. The insecurity of groundwater under the Project site is well documented by citizens in the vicinity, and that insecurity of water is not limited to just the neighboring citizens, it applies to the agricultural operation also.

Response M-3: The commentor provides two paragraphs describing their explanation for how stopping irrigation of the pecan orchard ag wells has hurt, not helped, the ground water supply.

The comments are as follows: “…The pecan ag wells are much larger than our residential wells. They pulled water from much deeper, irrigated the trees, flood irrigated, then soaked in and then recharged more shallow residential well. We could all tell the difference in our well productivity when the trees were no longer irrigated. Our wells decreased and some, like ours, have gone dry. So not using the orchard wells has decreased not increased usable residential groundwater. The report can talk about geology and hardpan, but we can talk about reality.

Eliminating the large permeable surface area will further degrade our water supply.

Identifying the recharge basin northwest of Perrin and Sunnyside as the destination for water in the proposed development is not in any way helpful for the existing residents.

Yes, it may work fine as a flood control measure; but that basin will offer no benefit for recharging the water table for existing residents. The general flow of the aquifers will take that recharge way from existing residents. A recharge basin for the proposed home needs to be in that specific same area, especially considering the very dramatic elimination or permeable surface area.”
• This comment is addressed under Master Response 3, 4, and 5.

Response M-4: The commentor provides a paragraph describing concerns with noise pollution, air, and light pollution, as well as traffic congestion. The commenter states the following: “…the report seems to be saying that these will be similar to similar residential density elsewhere, therefore the development is of no impact. This type of argument is laughable because it avoids (likely intentionally) the actual comparison that is relevant—that the baseline level 3340
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

2.0-88 Final Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North of noise, light, and air pollution will be dramatically increased. The comparison to baseline must be considered. Similarly with traffic congestion—compared to baseline there will be a dramatic increase in vehicle traffic and congestion even with the expansion of the road/intersection.”
• The comment regarding noise is addressed under Master Response 17. The comment regarding light is addressed under Master Response 18. The comment regarding Air pollution is addressed under Master Response 19.

The comment regarding traffic congestion is addressed under Master Response 6 through 13. The project proposes to construct 605 single-family residences. The surrounding areas in the neighborhood also mostly constitute of similar singlefamily residential developments. Additionally, several new projects within the area also proposes single-family residential developments. As such, the project does not propose any land use atypical to the area, or any land use that is estimated to change the neighborhood traffic pattern. Therefore, trip generation and distribution pattern from the project is also expected to be similar to the neighborhood trip patterns. In fact, implementation of recommended improvements as included in the TIA would help alleviate traffic congestion and safety related issues within the project vicinity, as well as existing and future residential communities in the area.

Response M-5: The commentor states that proposing Perrin as a north exit for this many houses is not appropriate or even viable and that they are not sure why this would be considered given the nature of the Perrin/Stanford corner and the adjacent roadways. The commenter then concludes that letter by requesting “…please put the brakes on for the moment and 3341
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North 2.0-89 let us work through these concerns. While our first instinct is to oppose city annexation, surely a path forward can be found if these problems are acknowledged and addressed.” • The traffic related comment is addressed under Master Response 6 through 13.

Access to the project from existing streets will be provided by four driveways: two on Sunnyside Avenue, one on Perrin Road (Stanford/Perrin), and one on Shepherd Avenue. Except for the driveways on Shepherd Avenue and Perrin, all other project driveways will operate as full-access driveways. The driveway on Shepherd Avenue will operate as a Right-In Right-Out/Left-In (RIRO/LI) driveway, since Shepherd Avenue has a speed limit of 40 MPH along the project frontage and estimated to have significant amount of through traffic. The driveway on Perrin (Stanford/Perrin) will be an exit only driveway and will provide emergency access. As included in the TIA, a sight distance analysis was conducted for all driveways to determine adequacy of sight for safe maneuver at the driveways using California Highway Design Manual (HDM) recommended methodology. As such, all the proposed project driveways achieve the adequate sight distances and have clear sight triangles for the drivers along the project frontage. The project is estimated to add only nominal trips to the local roads including Stanford Avenue and Perrin Road. This is because, due to the local circulation network and location of activity centers in relation to the project, majority of the project traffic is estimated to travel south using Shepherd Avenue on to Clovis Avenue, Sunnyside Avenue, and Fowler Avenue.

The traffic improvements recommended as part of the TIA accounts for cumulative traffic impact from all future projects, as well as the proposed Project.

This includes both vehicular and non-motorized traffic issues as described in the TIA.

The comments regarding their opposition and request to “put the brakes on for the moment and let us work through these concerns” is noted and will be provided 3342
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

2.0-90 Final Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North to the City for consideration. No further response to this comment is warranted in the EIR.
3343
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North 2.0-91 N-1
N-2
3344
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

2.0-92 Final Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North Response to Letter N: Charles Keller, Resident of Clovis Response N-1: The commentor states the following: “My wife, Lisa, and I appreciate that we were included in the informational letters and postcards sent out regarding the Shepherd North Project that Leo Wilson and the City are trying to put together. We are adamantly against this area just north of our home being included in an expansion of OUR Sphere of Influence et al. We are adamantly opposed to another 605 new homes being built by Leo Wilson or any other developer just North of us. We, and pretty much all of our new (Woodside Homes) and old neighbors are adamantly opposed to any more new developments until you have the intestinal fortitude to put all this new development to a vote. That is not a vote by the City Council that bends over backward to placate all developers and never listens to your own voters. Put new development to a vote. Ask your voters if they want more traffic, more schools with more school bonds, more crime, higher insurance rates, more crowded stores, less rural lifestyle, more LA freeways, and just more and more people!! Do you have the guts to ask?? We sincerely doubt it. Who the heck benefits? We don’t and we know because you just caused about 175 new homes to be built all around us. The ‘Clovis Way of Life’ has become more and more like the ‘Los Angeles Way of Life’.

We suggest you put all your staff to work bringing in new businesses rather than new homes. All your city planners, all your city engineers, all your city employees….direct them to work to bring in businesses to pay for OUR backlog of infrastructure. More businesses to pay for our police, and fire, and city maintenance. Not More Homes. More businesses to pay for George Gonzalez salary. Not more homes. Very very very few of our current residents benefit from more new homes. Only the developers benefit. List it out. Pros and Cons for the voters/residents of Clovis and put it to a vote…more people, more homes, more school bonds, more traffic….or not???”
• This comment is a statement of opposition by the commenter. It does not specifically identify an issue with the environmental document, but rather serves as a statement of opposition and a request that the Project be put to a vote. The commenter identifies their concerns regarding traffic, more schools with school bonds, crime, crowds, high insurance rates, and less rural life style. The EIR includes a discussion of traffic, which is also addressed in Master Response 6 through 13. The EIR also includes a discussion of schools and police services, which combat crime. The commenter concerns with insurance rates and rural lifestyle are noted. These comments to not trigger any changes to those discussions. The commenter’s recommendation for the City to use the City staff to bring in new business to pay for policy, fire, and city maintenance is noted.

These comments are noted and will be provided to the City for consideration. No further response to this comment is warranted in the EIR.

Response N-2: The commentor states the following: “We, Lisa and I, and our new and old neighbors would like an itemized response for this, please. No more mitigations, no or vastly fewer 3345
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North 2.0-93 new homes and certainly not another 605 to make Leo Wilson richer. We look forward to a rational response to our email. thanks, chuck and lisa keller et al...” • It is noted that one of the objectives of the project is to establish a mix of housing to provide for local and regional housing demand, and consistent with the City requirements in the latest Regional Housing Needs Analysis (RHNA). In light of the Legislature’s repeated determinations in recent years that California is facing a statewide housing crisis, the State has provided the City with good reason to exercise its legislative discretion to facilitate the construction of new housing.

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

2.0-94 Final Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North O-1
O-2
O-7
O-3
O-4
O-5
O-6
3347
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North 2.0-95 Response to Letter O: Curtis and Pamela Cookingham, Residents of Clovis Response O-1: The commentor provides a brief introductory paragraph describing opposition to the Project, and that there is no benefit to the Quail Run neighborhood. The statements serve as an introductory statement to their letter, and their specific concerns are more fully discussed in the following comments.
• These introductory statements are noted. There is no response warranted.

Response O-2: The commentor states the following: “1. Traffic will be a much bigger problem than it is now. There will be too many people, from too many homes using shepherd or the country streets in our neighborhood to access Fowler. When I take my kids to clovis north, I turn left off of Ticonderoga onto Fowler. The cars are backed up to shepherd every morning now - add 100s more from Wilson and 100s from Lennar. Problems for everyone - real problems for our neighborhood. More traffic provides no benefit to u, only continues headaches.”
• The traffic related comment is addressed under Master Response 6 through 13.

Access to the project from existing streets will be provided by four driveways: two on Sunnyside Avenue, one on Perrin Road, and one on Shepherd Avenue. Except for the driveways on Shepherd Avenue and Perrin, all other project driveways will operate as full-access driveways. The driveway on Shepherd Avenue will operate as a Right-In Right-Out/Left-In (RIRO/LI) driveway, since Shepherd Avenue has a speed limit of 40 MPH along the project frontage and estimated to have significant amount of through traffic. The driveway on Perrin will be an exit only driveway and will provide emergency access. As included in the TIA, a sight distance analysis was conducted for all driveways to determine adequacy of sight for safe maneuver at the driveways using California Highway Design Manual (HDM) recommended methodology. As such, all the proposed project driveways achieve the adequate sight distances and have clear sight triangles for the drivers along the project frontage.

The project is estimated to add only nominal trips to the local roads including Stanford, Perrin, and Ticonderoga. Similarly, it is estimated to add nominal trips to Fowler Avenue north of Shepherd Avenue. This is because, due to the local circulation network and location of activity centers in relation to the project, majority of the project traffic is estimated to travel south using Shepherd Avenue on to Clovis Avenue, Sunnyside Avenue, and Fowler Avenue. Based on the TIA, only 15 percent of project traffic is anticipated to utilize Fowler Avenue south of Shepherd Avenue. As such, the project is not estimated to create any traffic related issues along Fowler Avenue. A signal at the intersection of Fowler Avenue/Teague Avenue is in the City’s Development Impact Fee program and will be constructed when warranted but not as a requirement of the project. 3348
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

2.0-96 Final Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North Response O-3: The commentor states the following: “2. Noise - with more traffic and more homes, and more cement/asphalt - you get more noise. Our quiet neighborhood will change dramatically. Dirks explanation at the meeting is not based in reality. I’m in my backyard right now and see the Lennar homes that “we’re framed this week” getting closer and closer. Traffic and people will effect noise - there is no way to argue this. More noise provides no benefit to us”
• The noise related comment is addressed under Master Response 17.

Response O-4: The commentor states the following: “3. Lights. Our county neighborhood has no lights.

That was our choice when we purchased our homes. There will be street lights at the edge of our property lines. In addition to the above comments - this will change the rural setting of Quail arum immediately. More light provides no benefit to us.” • The light related comments, and the comments regarding the change of the setting is addressed under Master Response 18.

Response O-5: The commentor states the following: “4. Water. I already wrote to you about this. As far as I know - I have three neighbors who drilled new wells within the past year and I tried to revive an old well with a drilling company without success Our water situation has and is deteriorating. I have spent between 2500.00 - 3,000.00 this summer to bring potable water in. This was my most expensive summer yet. The farmers around us no longer flood irrigate, so our water tables are dropping. If we have no other recourse than to affirm this project, please use discernment and reason to forge an equitable plan with the builder to bring water to our lot boundaries.”
• The water related comment is addressed under Master Response 3, 4, and 5.

Response O-6: The commentor states the following: “5. The project plan that was available at the meeting shows street access into our actual neighborhood at the north/west corner of the Wilson homes. I am aggressively opposed to this as it will pour unwanted traffic onto winding country streets. Please do not allow access directly onto our streets.” • The neighborhood meeting related comment is addressed under Master Response 16. The commenter’s opposition to the Project is noted and will be provided to the City for their consideration. The traffic related comments are addressed under Master Response 6 through 13. Access to the project from existing streets will be provided by four driveways: two on Sunnyside Avenue, one on Perrin Road, and one on Shepherd Avenue. Except for the driveways on Shepherd Avenue and Perrin, all other project driveways will operate as fullaccess driveways. The driveway on Shepherd Avenue will operate as a Right-In Right-Out/Left-In (RIRO/LI) driveway, since Shepherd Avenue has a speed limit of 40 MPH along the project frontage and estimated to have significant amount of through traffic. The driveway on Perrin will be an exit only driveway and will 3349
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North 2.0-97 provide emergency access. As included in the TIA, a sight distance analysis was conducted for all driveways to determine adequacy of sight for safe maneuver at the driveways using California Highway Design Manual (HDM) recommended methodology. As such, all the proposed project driveways achieve the adequate sight distances and have clear sight triangles for the drivers along the project frontage.

Response O-7: The commentor states the following: “Again - the Wilson project provides the home owners of quail run NO BENEFIT - only negative change. Please consider our side. We want the Clovis way of life to continue.”
• The commenter’s opposition to the Project is noted and will be provided to the City for their consideration.
3350
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

2.0-98 Final Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North P-1
3351
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North 2.0-99 Response to Letter P: Kirk and Sandra Warner, Residents of Clovis Response P-1: The commentor states the following: “We live at 9364 Sunnyside Ave, Clovis. My husband is the original owner and has lived here for 35 years. We have concerns with traffic issues from the additional 605 homes. Our concerns are that the additional volume of vehicles from 605 homes (times 2 per home) on Sunnyside and going through to Fowler will make it impossible to control speeding and tough to get out of this area on to Shepherd and/or Fowler.”
• The comment regarding traffic is addressed in Master Response 6 through 13. The project proposes to construct 605 single-family residences. The surrounding areas in the neighborhood also mostly constitute of similar single-family residential developments.

Additionally, several new projects within the area also proposes single-family residential developments. As such, the project does not propose any land use atypical to the area, or any land use that is estimated to change the neighborhood traffic pattern. Therefore, trip generation and distribution pattern from the project is also expected to be similar to the neighborhood trip patterns. In fact, implementation of recommended improvements as included in the TIA would help alleviate traffic congestion and safety related issues within the project vicinity, as well as existing and future residential communities in the area.

The TIA includes contribution of traffic from all future developments that would add traffic to the TIA study area. As such, the traffic improvements recommended as part of this study accounts for cumulative traffic impact from all future projects, as well as the proposed project. Additionally, the traffic analysis takes into consideration the effects of school traffic under existing and future long-range conditions. The improvements proposed in the study would help address the traffic congestion issues from all future developments, as well as school related traffic within the project vicinity. This includes both vehicular and non-motorized traffic issues as described in the TIA.

The project is estimated to add only nominal trips to local streets like Stanford, Perrin Road, Ticonderoga, as well as on to Fowler Avenue north of Shepherd Avenue. This is because, due to the local circulation network and location of activity centers in relation to the project, majority of the project traffic is estimated to travel south using Shepherd Avenue on to Clovis Avenue, Sunnyside Avenue, and Fowler Avenue. Based on the TIA, only 15 percent of project traffic is anticipated to utilize Fowler Avenue. As such, the project is not estimated to create any traffic related issues along Fowler Avenue. A signal at the intersection of Fowler Avenue/Teague Avenue is in the City’s Development Impact Fee program and will be constructed when warranted but not as a requirement of the project.

Access to the project from existing streets will be provided by four driveways: two on Sunnyside Avenue, one on Perrin Road, and one on Shepherd Avenue. Except for the 3352
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

2.0-100 Final Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North driveways on Shepherd Avenue and Perrin, all other project driveways will operate as fullaccess driveways. The driveway on Shepherd Avenue will operate as a Right-In RightOut/Left-In (RIRO/LI) driveway, since Shepherd Avenue has a speed limit of 40 MPH along the project frontage and estimated to have significant amount of through traffic. The driveway on Perrin will be an exit only driveway and will provide emergency access. As included in the TIA, a sight distance analysis was conducted for all driveways to determine adequacy of sight for safe maneuver at the driveways using California Highway Design Manual (HDM) recommended methodology. As such, all the proposed project driveways achieve the adequate sight distances and have clear sight triangles for the drivers along the project frontage.

COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North 2.0-101 Q-1
Q-2
Q-3
3354
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

2.0-102 Final Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North Q-3 Cont.
3355
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North 2.0-103 Q-3 Cont.

Q-4
3356
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

2.0-104 Final Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North Q-4 Cont.
3357
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North 2.0-105 Q-4 Cont.

Q-6
Q-5
3358
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

2.0-106 Final Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North Q-6 Cont.

Q-7
Q-8
3359
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North 2.0-107 Q-8 Cont.
3360
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

2.0-108 Final Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North Q-8 Cont.

Q-9
3361
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North 2.0-109 Q-10
Q-9 Cont.
3362
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

2.0-110 Final Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North Q-10
Cont.

Q-11
3363
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North 2.0-111 Q-11 cont’d
Q-12
Q-13
3364
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

2.0-112 Final Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North Q-13 Cont.
3365
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North 2.0-113 Q-14
3366
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

2.0-114 Final Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North Q-14 Cont.

Q-15
3367
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North 2.0-115 Q-17
Q-16
Q-15 Cont.

Q-18
3368
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

2.0-116 Final Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North Q-18 Cont.

Q-19
3369
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North 2.0-117 Q-20
Q-21
Q-19 Cont.
3370
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

2.0-118 Final Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North Response to Letter Q: Jared Callister, Resident of Clovis Response Q-1: The commentor states the following:
“I am writing as an owner and resident of the Quail Run neighborhood (9318 N. Sunnyside, Ave. Clovis, CA 93619) which is the community of 18 homes immediately north of the proposed development (the “Project”). While I don’t represent the Qual Run community as a whole, I can assure you that most of its residents (if not all) share the major concerns I have with respect to the Project. In particular, I am writing regarding the Draft Environmental Impact Report ("DEIR") that attempts to argue that the Project has no real impact on the community. Make no mistake about it, the Project’s impact not only on the Quail Run neighborhood but on the community at large will be substantial.

The Project will forever change the way of life for those in its immediate vicinity and the DEIR pays lip service to the numerous and major concerns of the community.” • The City disagrees that the DEIR “attempts to argue that the Project has no potential impact on the community.” Rather, the DEIR identifies “Potentially Significant Impacts” under the topics: Biological Resources, Geology and Soils, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Noise, and Traffic. These are presented as potential impacts as disclosed in the DEIR. The DEIR then presents mitigation that is intended to avoid, reduce, or minimize the Potentially Significant Impacts that are identified. The impacts are able to be reduced to a less than significant level with the mitigation presented, with the exception of the impacts from Traffic. For Traffic, the DEIR concludes that the Project would have a Significant and Unavoidable impact, including under cumulative conditions. It is also noted that the DEIR references existing regulations, rules, standards, and specifications that are already in place that would reduce impacts for topics including: Aesthetics, Air Quality, Greenhouse Gases, Climate Change, and Energy, Hydrology and Water Quality, and Utilities. All development within the proposed Project can be classified as a permanent physical change to the environment.

Response Q-2: The commentor states the following:
“The DEIR was not properly noticed, fails to analyze numerous potentially significant environmental impacts, fails to evaluate feasible alternatives and mitigation measures, and fails to support its conclusions with substantial evidence. Accordingly, the DEIR is inadequate under the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") and as a result, I oppose approval of the Project and certification of the DEIR. I urge the City to address the DEIR's shortcomings in a revised EIR that is recirculated for public review and comment, prior to considering any approvals for the Project.”
• This comment is noted. The comment does not provide the specificity necessary to prepare a detailed response, instead the comment serves as a prelude to the 3371
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North 2.0-119 more detailed comments provided later in the letter, each of which have a specific response. Nevertheless, the comments will be provided to the City for consideration.

Response Q-3: The commentor provides several pages of discussion under a heading entitled: “I. LEGAL STANDARDS, a. The EIR Must Afford the Fullest Possible Protection to the Environment and Have Sufficient Detail to Enable Those Who Did Not Participate in Its Preparation to Understand and to Consider Meaningfully the Issues Raised by the Proposed Project.” • This comment is noted. The legal standards provided are references to statute or case laws relevant to CEQA. The comments do not identify something specific in the DEIR, rather it is the authors presentation of legal standards that apply to CEQA documents.

Response Q-4: The commentor provides several pages of discussion under a heading entitled: “II. THE

DEIR WAS IMPROPERLY NOTICED & FAILED TO INCLUDE ALL STATUTORILY REQUIRED INFORMATION.” The commenter then provides a discussion under a heading entitled “a.

A Full 45-day Notice of the DEIR Was Not Provided.” Here the commenter cites several cases and contends that the City did not provide a full 45-day public review period because the original Notice of Availability identified the 45-day public review period closing on September 4th, which was a holiday.
• To clarify, the City did establish the 45-day review period for the EIR in accordance with the statutory mandate. During the review period, however, it was discovered that the public review end date would fall on a holiday. Once this was recognized, the City extended the public review period an extra day (46 days total review) to ensure that there was additional time beyond the holiday to receive comments. It is noted that the City received an additional letter on September 6, 2023, which required the City to extend the review period for a second day. As shown in the Table 2.0-1, there were five comment letters received dated September 5th, and one comment letter dated September 6th. This reflects the fact that the City extended the review period beyond the statutory 45-day requirements because of the holiday. It is also noted that the State Clearinghouse database (CEQAnet) reflects a public review end date of September 5, 2023, which is consistent with the extension of the public review period beyond the 45- day requirements because of the holiday.

Response Q-5: The commentor provides a discussion under a heading entitled “b. The Notice of DEIR Failed to Include all Required Information.” The commenter then states the following:
“Under Pub Res C §21092(b)(1) and 14 Cal Code Regs §15087(c), a notice that a draft EIR is available for public review must contain certain key items, meant to assist the public in its review. The purpose of the description of the project is to alert the public 3372
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

2.0-120 Final Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North of its nature, location, and purpose so that interested persons can determine whether to review the draft EIR and provide comments.

In particular, one key item that must be included in such notice is an explanation of the “anticipated significant environmental effect of the project.” However, noticeably absent from the Notice regarding this Project is any description of such “anticipated significant environmental effects”.

And yet, by the DEIR’s own admission, the DEIR confirms that the Project’s impacts on traffic (3.13-1) will be significant and unavoidable even with their proposed mitigation measures. Likewise, the DEIR confirms that the Project’s impact on birds and other mammals will be “potentially significant” and further confirms that construction noise and operation noise with be “potentially significant”. Furthermore, the DEIR acknowledges that without mitigation, the Project’s involvement with the transportation and use of hazardous materials will be “potentially significant”.

Notwithstanding the above-mentioned significant impacts, the Notice failed to mention, list or identify these specific impacts as required under CEQA. This failure to comply with CEQA is an abuse of discretion which requires the DEIR to be re-circulated and correctly noticed for comment with a complete list of all significant impacts.” • The commenter is referred to the fourth paragraph of the Notice of Availability (NOA) which states:
“Significant Environmental Effects:

The Draft EIR has identified the following environmental issue areas as having significant and unavoidable environmental impacts from implementation of the project: Transportation and Circulation, and Cumulative Impacts. All other environmental issues were determined to have no impact, less than significant impacts, or less than significant impacts with mitigation measures incorporated into the Project.”
Here, the NOA very clearly, and contrary to the commenter’s assertion, identifies that Transportation and Circulation as a topic listed where the DEIR concluded that the Project would have significant and unavoidable impacts. The commenter is also referred to the DEIR Executive Summary, Table ES-2 Project Impacts and Proposed Mitigation Measures, for a full overview of the Project Impacts. In that table, the commenter can find that mitigation measures have been incorporated into the Project to avoid, reduce, or minimize any potential impacts, and the resulting impact is less than significant for all topics with the exception of the Traffic impacts as identified in the NOA. The NOA listed the Traffic Impacts as the impact that is an anticipated significant environmental impact in accordance with the CEQA Guidelines.
3373
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North 2.0-121 Response Q-6: The commentor provides several pages of discussion under a heading entitled: “III. THE DEIR IS LEGALLY INSUFFICIENT IN NUMEROUS RESPECTS.” The commenter then provides a discussion under a heading entitled: “a. The Scope of the DEIR is Insufficient as it Fails to Consider the Unique Characteristics of the Immediate Community and Uses an Improper Baseline Throughout the Bulk of its Analysis.” The commenter then states the following:

The DEIR purports to address issues and comments raised in the scoping process.

However, the DEIR wholly fails to address one key request during the scoping process— namely, the Project’s impacts on the unique characteristics and concerns of the Quail Run Community, referred to as the “Expansion SubArea North” in the DEIR.

The Quail Run Community is a community of 18 homes in Fresno County surrounded by and directly adjacent to the Project. In particular, the community is a beautiful and tranquil rural residential community very similar to the well-known Dry Creek Preserve.

For years, the Quail Run Community has been part of a designated County Service Area 51---which is an area of well-known and well- documented water issues. Homeowners in County Service Area 51 have had major concerns with the area’s groundwater supplies—as many have had to dig several deeper wells over the years.

Indeed, during one scoping phone call I had with City staff, I attempted to clarify the unique concerns of Quail Run and requested that the DEIR include a detailed microstudy of this area and community to ensure that its issues were addressed. In particular, it must be determined, with certainty, how the Project will impact the unique water concerns of the Qual Run neighborhood.

Unfortunately, the DEIR makes no specific study or analysis of the Quail Run community or the Project’s impacts on this community. All the DEIR can muster is to simply define the Expansion SubArea North in several sentences—but with no further analysis or direct connection.
• Contrary to the commenter’s assertions, the DEIR does address the Quail Run community. Specifically, the Quail Run community is part of the “NonDevelopment Area”, which is defined in Section 2.0 Project Description, on page

2.0-1. Here, the DEIR identifies the Non-Development Area as parcels being included in the SOI expansion that will not be entitled for subdivision or development. This includes two separate areas, each described as an Expansion SubArea. The two Expansion SubAreas total 78 acres and are defined as Expansion SubArea North and Expansion SubArea East. The Quail Run community is part of the Expansion SubAreas. The Quail Run community is further shown illustratively on numerous Figures within Section 2.0 Project Description.

The term “Non-Development Area” as used for the Quail Run community, is intended to mean, there will be no physical changes to these lots nor public infrastructure improvements constructed to serve this area. There will be 3374
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

2.0-122 Final Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North ancillary infrastructure constructed adjacent to this area within the public streets as shown in the various studies included in the Environmental Analysis. The NonDevelopment Area is within the Project Boundary solely to be included in a Sphere of Influence (SOI) boundary change. The SOI boundary change would be reflected on a map only (a line drawn on a map) and does not physically change the properties. Notably, the Quail Run community would remain within the unincorporated County, and would maintain all General Plan land use and zoning designations provided by the County. In addition, the Quail Run Community would also remain in County Service Area 51. The SOI Expansion is more fully detailed in Master Response 14.

Master Response 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 provides extensive detail regarding Water, including discussions regarding: groundwater recharge, soils, percolation, wells, agricultural irrigation, trucking in water, water service from City, WSA, Floodplain, and drainage.

Response Q-7: The commenter states the following:
“Most egregious, is that the DEIR uses an improperly broad and ill-defined “Baseline” when conducting the bulk of its analysis. Time and time again, the DEIR uses the City of Clovis and/or the County of Fresno (as whole) as its Baseline. The is wholly meaningless and counter-productive to how a resident of Quail Run is to gauge the actual impact on his/her neighborhood.

By comparing the Project's numerous impacts to the entire City and County, the DEIR seeks to diminish the significance of these impacts caused by the Project. CEQA prohibits this type of "drop in the bucket" analysis. No single project would ever have a significant impact if its effects were compared to an entire region. In Friends of Oroville v. City of Oroville (2013) 219 Cal. App. 4th 832, 841-842, the Court of Appeal held that the agency failed to adequately analyze a project's cumulative contribution to significant GHG impacts by concluding, without adequate analysis, that the project's "miniscule" emissions were insignificant in light of the state 's cumulative, state-wide GHG emissions, thus "applying a meaningless, relative number to determine insignificant impact." The DEIR makes the same error here by comparing the Project's impacts on traffic, noise, light and other matters to the entire City and County of Fresno.

An analysis that compares and contrasts an improper baseline is wholly inadequate and offers a false picture of how the Project will truly impact the unique Quail Run community. The DEIR must be revised to provide a proper analysis the Project’s impacts on the Quail Run community specifically; and based on this analysis, to revise other environmental analyses including but not limited to population and housing, transportation, noise pollution, light pollution, among other topics.” 3375
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North 2.0-123 • Under CEQA, the impacts of a proposed project must be evaluated by comparing expected environmental conditions after project implementation to conditions at a point in time referred to as the baseline. The changes in environmental conditions between those two scenarios represent the environmental impacts of the proposed project. The description of the environmental conditions in the project study area under baseline conditions is referred to as the environmental setting. The CEQA Guidelines Section 15125 provides the following guidance for establishing the baseline: An EIR must include a description of the physical environmental conditions in the vicinity of the project, as they exist at the time the notice of preparation is published, or if no notice of preparation is published, at the time environmental analysis is commenced, from both a local and regional perspective. This environmental setting will normally constitute the baseline physical conditions by which a lead agency determines whether an impact is significant. The commenter is referred to the “Environmental Setting” heading located within Sections 3.1 through 3.14. Here an Environmental Setting (i.e.

Baseline Condition) is presented for each environmental topic. Additionally, Section 2.0 Project Description, includes a “Project Setting,” in which the Existing Site Conditions, Site Topography, Existing Site Uses, Existing Surrounding Uses, and Existing General Plan Land Use Designations and Zoning are described.

The impacts that are described in each Section of the DEIR represent the change in environmental conditions that would be anticipated to result from the baseline condition compared to a future “developed” scenario if the Project were approved and constructed. These impacts are not limited to impacts only to the Quail Run community. Some impacts are much broader and would affect an entire air basin, or the world as a whole (i.e. air quality impacts are basin-level impacts, and GHG impacts are world-level climate impacts). Impacts such as noise and traffic can be characterized as more local-level impacts, meaning that they would affect the general vicinity of the Project site, or possibly city-wide. Some impacts are more localized (i.e. construction on the Project site would physically change the Project site, but not result in construction elsewhere). The impact discussions provided in the DEIR are at the appropriate scale, and are performed to the appropriate scientific standards for each topic.

Response Q-8: The commentor provides several pages of discussion under a heading entitled: “b. The DEIR Only Presents “Straw Man” Alternatives and Fails to Include Several Reasonable Feasible Alternatives that Would Meet all Project Objectives and Result in Less Environmental Impacts than the Project.” The commenter then states the following:

An EIR must describe a reasonable range of alternatives to the Project, or to the location of the Project, which would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the 3376
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

2.0-124 Final Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North project, and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives. "An EIR's discussion of alternatives must contain analysis sufficient to allow informed decision making." Laurel Heights I, 47 Cal.3d at 404. An EIR must also include "detail sufficient to enable those who did not participate in its preparation to understand and to consider meaningfully the issues raised by the proposed project." Id. at 405.

CEQA requires public agencies to avoid or reduce environmental damage when "feasible" by requiring "environmentally superior" alternatives and all feasible mitigation measures. CEQA Guidelines § 15002(a)(2) and (3); see also, Berkeley Jets, 91 Cal. App. 4th 1344, 1354; Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors (1990) 52 Cal.3d 553, 564. The EIR serves to provide agencies and the public with information about the environmental impacts of a proposed project and to "identify ways that environmental damage can be avoided or significantly reduced." CEQA Guidelines § 15002(a)(2). If the project will have a significant effect on the environment, the agency may approve the project only if it finds that it has "eliminated or substantially lessened all significant effects on the environment where feasible" and that any unavoidable significant effects on the environment are "acceptable due to overriding concerns." Pub. Res. Code§ 21081; CEQA Guidelines § 15092(b)(2)(A) & (B). A "feasible" alternative is one that is capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, legal, social and technological factors. Pub. Res. Code§ 21061.1; CEQA Guidelines § 15364.

However, the three alternatives currently presented in the draft EIR seem to be set up as "straw man" alternatives, intentionally skewed to make the proposed project appear as the most preferable or only viable option. Here are the primary issues:

1. Increased Density Mixed Use Alternative: This alternative, by introducing both homes and apartment complexes, appears to exacerbate the environmental concerns rather than offering a genuine mitigative solution. An alternative in an EIR should ideally present options that reduce environmental impacts, not increase them.

2. Reduced Density Alternative: While this alternative reduces the number of homes, it does not sufficiently explore the potential middle ground between high-density and low-density development. Indeed, this option only presents 105 single family homes with no mixed densities. Presenting only a drastically reduced density alternative, without examining intermediate options, can artificially create a contrast that makes the proposed Project appear as a balanced solution. By only considering a large-lot alternative without varying densities the DEIR presents this merely as an illusory alternative that was never meant to be fully considered.

3. Reduced Sphere of Influence: This “alternative” simply presents the exact same development, but simply shrinks the Sphere of Influence and its environmental 3377
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North 2.0-125 impacts are identical to the proposed project. Offering an alternative that's so similar to the proposed project doesn't give decision-makers or the public a meaningful choice. To call this a viable or thoughtful “alternative” that is meant to reduce environmental impacts is laughable.

To ensure compliance with the spirit and letter of CEQA and to provide a genuine set of alternatives for consideration, I strongly urge the City to:
• Broaden the Range: Include a more diverse range of alternatives that genuinely seek to reduce the significant environmental impacts of the project. • Examine Intermediate Solutions: Instead of the extremes of very high or very low density, consider introducing intermediate-density alternatives that can strike a balance between development needs and environmental conservation. • Avoid Redundant Alternatives: Each alternative should be distinct enough from the proposed project to provide a genuine choice. If two alternatives are nearly identical in impact, it can be seen as a redundancy that doesn't aid in meaningful decision-making.

Specifically, the City should consider the following specific reasonable alternatives:
• Medium Density Housing of Approximately 350 Homes: Rather than a 605- unit project, or a 105 unit project, the DEIR needs to examine and consider a balanced, 350 unit project development which consists of a mixture of housing types, sizes and densities. A project such as this would undoubtedly have a reduced environmental impact when compared to the Project while at the same time meeting all of the state project goals.
• Southern Parcel Development Only: Another viable alternative that the City should consider and evaluate is a project which only allows for the development of the southern two parcels of the Project site (APNs: 557-021- 19; 20) while retaining the northern parcel (APN: 557-021-21) as prime farmland. The development could consider medium to high density housing of mixed housing types, sizes and densities so as to not only meet the project goals, but to have a reduced environmental impact when compared to the Project.

In conclusion, for a more robust, transparent, and credible environmental review process, it's crucial that the alternatives section of the EIR be revised to present a sincere and varied set of options. This not only meets legal requirements but also fosters public trust in the development and decision-making processes.” • Alternatives are addressed in Section 5.0 Alternatives. The range of alternatives addressed in the EIR is sufficient to foster informed decision-making and informed public participation. CEQA requires that a DEIR analyze a reasonable 3378
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

2.0-126 Final Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North range of feasible alternatives that meet most or all project objectives while reducing or avoiding one or more significant environmental effects of the project.

The range of alternatives required in a DEIR is governed by a “rule of reason” that requires a DEIR to set forth only those alternatives necessary to permit a reasoned choice (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6[f]). At the time of project approval, the City Council will have broad discretion to approve the proposed Project if it finds it to be the best choice from a policy perspective, particularly in light of recent findings by the Legislature that the State is suffering a housing crisis of historic proportions. CEQA constrains the City Council’s police power somewhat, but does not substantially reduce the robustness of that power. Here, the Clovis City Council, like any other, has a robust police power, though it is circumscribed in some situations by state legislation intended to serve statewide purposes such as, for example, the need to provide housing during a time of crisislevel housing shortfalls. (See, e.g., Gov. Code, §§ 65589.5, subd. (j), 66300, subd. (b).) But generally, when a city or county is engaged in land use planning, the local agency’s CEQA obligation to adopt feasible alternatives as means of lessening or avoiding significant environmental effects still leaves the agency with broad legislative discretion to achieve outcomes consistent with what the agency’s decisionmakers regard as desirable public policy. (See, e.g., City of Del Mar v. City of San Diego (1982) 133 Cal.App.3d 410, 417 [“‘feasibility’ under CEQA encompasses ‘desirability’ to the extent that desirability is based on a reasonable balancing of the relevant economic, environmental, social, and technological factors”]; California Native Plant Society v. City of Santa Cruz (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 957, 1001 [same]; San Diego Citizenry Group v. County of San Diego (2013) 219 Cal.App.4th 1, 17 [same]; Sierra Club v. County of Napa (2004) 121 Cal.App.4th 1490, 1506-1509 [upholding CEQA findings rejecting alternatives in reliance on applicant’s project objectives]; Citizens for Open Government v. City of Lodi (2012) 205 Cal.App.4th 296, 314-315 [court upholds an agency action rejecting an alternative because it would not “entirely fulfill” a particular project objective and “would be ‘substantially less effective’ in meeting” the lead agency’s “goals”]; and In re Bay-Delta Programmatic Environmental Impact Report Coordinated Proceedings (2008) 43 Cal.4th 1143, 1165, 1166 [“feasibility is strongly linked to achievement of each of the primary program objectives”; “a lead agency may structure its DEIR alternative analysis around a reasonable definition of underlying purpose and need not study alternatives that cannot achieve that basic goal”].)

Page 5 ends

indicates that four alternatives to the proposed Project were developed based on input from City staff. It is noted that a Notice of Preparation (NOP) was also 3379
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North 2.0-127 circulated to the public to solicit recommendations for a reasonable range of alternatives to the proposed Project. Additionally, a public scoping meeting was held during the public review period to solicit recommendations for a reasonable range of alternatives to the proposed Project. No specific alternatives were recommended by commenting agencies or the general public during the NOP public review process. The alternatives that were developed include the following four alternatives in addition to the proposed Project.
o No Project (No Build) Alternative: Under this alternative, development of the Project site would not occur, and the Project site would remain in its current existing condition.
o Increased Density Mixed Use Alternative: Under this alternative, the proposed Project would be developed at a higher density for the residential uses and would also include a mixed-use component to the alternative. Approximately 62 acres would be developed with 605 residential units under the medium-high density residential use, 10 acres would be developed with 195 apartments under the high-density residential use, and 5 acres would be developed with 108,000 square feet under the neighborhood commercial use.
o Reduced Density Alternative: Under this alternative, the proposed Project would have a reduced density for the residential uses.

Approximately 150 residential units would be developed under the very low-density residential designation.
o Reduced Sphere of Influence Alternative: Physically, there is little difference between the proposed Project and this alternative. It is noted, however, that the reduction in the SOI would eliminate the possibility of the Non-Development Area connecting to City services at some point in the future, if desired by those residents.

Page 5 ends

locations for the Project included a review of previous land use planning and environmental documents in Clovis, including the General Plan. The search included a review of land in Clovis that is located within the Sphere of Influence, suitable for development, available for acquisition, and not already approved or pending development. It was found that there are numerous approved projects and proposed projects that are currently under review in Clovis. These approved and proposed projects are not available for acquisition by the Project applicant and are not considered a feasible alternative for the Project applicant. The City has found that there are no feasible alternative locations that exist within the City’s Sphere of Influence with the appropriate size and characteristics that would 3380
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

2.0-128 Final Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North meet the basic Project objectives and avoid or substantially lessen a significant effect. For these reasons, the City of Clovis determined that there are no feasible alternative locations.

These alternatives constitute a reasonable range of alternatives for the analysis in the EIR. The City solicited input from the community during the early planning stage to try to develop ideas that could be incorporated into a DEIR alternative.

This included engaging the public during the scoping meeting and NOP public review. It is not the City’s policy to evaluate every fathomable alternative, rather, they follow the requirements of CEQA by developing a reasonable range of alternatives, which has been performed.

Response Q-9: The commentor provides a heading entitled: “c. The DEIR Fails to Consider Other Alternative Locations in its Sphere of Influence and Justify Its Conclusions.” The commenter then states the following:

The DEIR states that the City considered alternative locations for the Project that were in the SOI and were suitable for development. The DEIR notes that “it was found that there are numerous approved projects and proposed projects that are currently under review in Clovis.” The DEIR than summarily rejects these alternative locations as they “are not available for acquisition by the Project applicant and are not considered a feasible alternative for the Project applicant.” Incredibly, the DEIR then asserts that:
“The City has found that there are no feasible alternative locations that exist within the City’s Sphere of Influence with the appropriate size and characteristics that would meet the basic Project objectives and avoid or substantially lessen a significant effect. For these reasons, the City of Clovis determined that there are no feasible alternative locations.” (5.0-2)
This statement is not credible given the fact that City’s massive Heritage Grove project has been approved and are part of the Sphere of Influence. Is the City really saying that out of the entire Heritage Grove planning area, there is NO alternative site location that feasibly meets the stated project goals?
Most egregiously, is that the DEIR doesn’t provide any evidence, data, statistic or studies to actually prove or demonstrate that the alternative locations (including Heritage Grove) where inadequate.

Under CEQA, while the City may consider whether the developer owns the land that may be an alternative site, City must consider whether the project proponent can reasonably acquire, control, or otherwise obtain access to the site if the project proponent does not own the alternative site. 14 Cal Code Regs §15126.6(f)(1). Here, the DEIR simply makes conclusory statements that the alternative sites are “not 3381
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North 2.0-129 available for acquisition.” Evidence should be presented to prove that such alternative sites cannot reasonably be acquired by the project proponent in this case.

Indeed, if the City is alleging such alternative sites are economically infeasible, then it needs to actually present an economic analysis that proves and demonstrates such alternatives are not economically viable. (See Citizens of Goleta Valley v Board of Supervisors (1990) 52 C3d 553, 575 n7, (where agency’s conclusions of economic infeasibility where supported by economic analysis and data that showed alternative site was no viable).)
• This comment is addressed, in part, under Response Q-8 above. The commenter’s suggestion of using the Heritage Grove project (which they have identified as an approved project) as an alternative location indicates their misunderstanding of what would be considered a suitable alternative location. For clarification, the Heritage Grove Design Guidelines were approved in 2016. The primary purpose of the design guidelines were to establish an overall theme, illustrate intended architectural elements and carry out the goals and objectives of the Clovis General Plan. The City is currently processing or reviewing various proposed projects in the Heritage Grove growth area. An example of a current proposed project is The Villages Specific Plan, which encompasses approximately 880 acres of land generally located on the north side of Shepherd Avenue, between Willow and Sunnyside Avenues. A second proposed project in Heritage Grove is the proposed Tentative Tract Map 6343 on the south side of Behymer Avenue, west of Sunnyside Avenue. Both of these proposed projects are located within the City’s Sphere of Influence, but this is an already intended for development.

Section 5.0 Alternatives to the Proposed Project (page 5.0-2) states:
“The City’s consideration of alternative locations for the Project included a review of previous land use planning and environmental documents in Clovis, including the General Plan. The search included a review of land in Clovis that is located within the Sphere of Influence, suitable for development, available for acquisition, and not already approved or pending development. It was found that there are numerous approved projects and proposed projects that are currently under review in Clovis.

These approved and proposed projects are not available for acquisition by the Project applicant and are not considered a feasible alternative for the Project applicant. The City has found that there are no feasible alternative locations that exist within the City’s Sphere of Influence with the appropriate size and characteristics that would meet the basic Project objectives and avoid or substantially lessen a significant effect. For these reasons, the City of Clovis determined that there are no feasible alternative locations.
3382
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

2.0-130 Final Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North A key consideration in determining alternative locations, as is described in the DEIR page 5.0-2, is that the alternative location in question cannot be an already approved or pending project. The commenter’s suggestion of Heritage Grove being an alternative location does not meet the criteria for suitable alternative locations. For clarification, the Heritage Grove Design Guidelines were approved in 2016. The primary purpose of the design guidelines were to establish an overall theme, illustrate intended architectural elements and carry out the goals and objectives of the Clovis General Plan. The City is currently processing or reviewing various proposed projects in the Heritage Grove growth area. An example of a current proposed project is The Villages Specific Plan, which encompasses approximately 880 acres of land generally located on the north side of Shepherd Avenue, between Willow and Sunnyside Avenues. A second proposed project in Heritage Grove is the proposed Tentative Tract Map 6343 on the south side of Behymer Avenue, west of Sunnyside Avenue. Both of these proposed projects are located within the City’s Sphere of Influence, but this is an already intended for development.

Response Q-10: The commentor provides a heading entitled: “d. The DEIR Improperly Dismisses the “Reduced Density” Alternative.” The commenter then states the following:

The City is required to select the environmentally preferable alternative unless it is infeasible. As explained by the Supreme Court, an environmentally superior alternative may not be rejected simply because it is more expensive or less profitable:

The fact that an alternative may be more expensive or less profitable is not sufficient to show that the alternative is financially infeasible. What is required is evidence that the additional costs or lost profitability are sufficiently severe as to render it impractical to proceed with the project.

Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Ed. of Supervisors (1988) 197 Cal.App.3d 1167, 1180-81; see also, Burger v. County of Mendocino (1975) 45 Cal.App.3d 322; County of El Dorado v.

Dept. of Transp. (2005) 133 Cal.App.4th 1376 (agency must consider small alternative to casino project); Preservation Action Counsel v. San Jose (2006) 141 Cal. App. 4th 1336. In addition, an environmentally superior alternative may not be rejected because it does not meet all of a project's objectives.

Inconsistency with only some of the project objectives is not necessarily an appropriate basis to eliminate impact-reducing project alternatives from analysis in an EIR. CEQA Guidelines § 15126.6(c), (f); see also Watsonville Pilots Assn. v. City of Watsonville (2010) 183 Cal.App.4th 1059, 1089. Indeed, an alternative that would not meet every Project objective is not a sufficient justification for not considering it in detail. Mira Mar Mobile Community v City of Oceanside (2004) 119 CA4th 477,489;14 C.C.R. § 15126.6. 3383
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North 2.0-131 Here, the DEIR admits and concedes that the “Reduced Density” alternative is the superior alternative when it comes to the environmental impacts (5.0). However, notwithstanding the Reduced Density alternative’s superiority over the Project, the DEIR summarily dismissed this alternative on the grounds that the “Reduced Density Alternative does not fully meet all of the Project Objectives.” Curiously, the DEIR doesn’t even elaborate or identify the Project objectives that are not met. In reality, the Reduced Density appears to not meet only one stated Project objective---the objective seeking mixed-density housing. However, the failure to meet all projective objectives is not sufficient to dismiss the alternative out of hand when it is environmentally superior.

Here, the DEIR appears to be drawing up project objectives so narrowly so as to improperly exclude all other viable alternatives. Under CEQA, a lead agency cannot adopt artificially narrow project objectives that would preclude consideration of reasonable alternatives for achieving the project's underlying purpose. (We Advocate Through Envt'l Review v County of Siskiyou (2022) 78 CA5th 683, 692 (project objectives were so narrowly defined lead agency "dismissively rejected" any alternatives other than the proposed project); North Coast Rivers Alliance v Kawamura (2015) 243 CA4th 647, 669 (EIR on program to protect plants from invasive insect pest failed to consider control as alternative to eradication); County of Inyo v City of Los Angeles (1977) 71 CA3d 185, 203 (EIR for expansion of groundwater extraction program failed to consider water conservation as alternative to increased groundwater extraction).

Finally, it is abundantly clear that the DEIR understates how much superior the Reduced Density Alternative is when compared to the Project. For example, the Reduced Density Alternative would consist of approximately 1/6th the number of homes in the proposed Project (namely 105 homes compared to 605 homes). Obviously, a subdivision with 1/6th the number of homes as the proposed Project will have substantially and significantly less impacts on the community than the Project. And yet, throughout the DEIR, when analyzing and contrasting the Reduced Density Alternative, the DEIR understates this distinction. For example, the DEIR often states that the impacts arising from this alternative would be “slightly less when compared to the proposed Project.” It is inconceivable that a development with 1/6th the number of homes would only have a “slightly less” impact than the Project when it comes to traffic, noise, light, public services and the other environmental considerations. Thus, the DEIR paints the false impression that the Reduced Density Alternative is only slightly better environmentally than the Project.”
• Alternatives are addressed in Section 5.0 Alternatives. Based on the comments above, additional text was added to page 5.0-72 through 5.0-74 to clarify the objectives that were not met. The updated text is presented in Section 3.0 Errata. 3384
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

2.0-132 Final Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North For specific clarification, the following two project objectives are not fully met under the Reduced Density Alternative:

Provide residential housing opportunities that are visually attractive and accommodate the future housing demand in Clovis, consistent with policies stated in A Landscape of Choice to modestly increase urban density.

Establish a mixture of housing types, sizes and densities that collectively provide for local and regional housing demand, consistent with City Requirements as stated in the latest Regional Housing Needs Analysis (RHNA).

The Reduced Density Alternative would provide housing (150 units), but it would be 455 units less then what is proposed. The first objective listed above references “A Landscape of Choice” which is a regional document that provides direction for the region to utilize urban land as efficiently as possible while providing an adequate supply of a broad range of housing types and densities to meet market demand. One of the guiding principles recommends measures to facilitate and encourage compact growth to all urban land uses including commercial, industrial and institutional uses. The Reduced Density Alternative is not consistent with this guidance for the region.

The second objective listed above references establishing a mix of housing to provide for local and regional housing demand, and consistent with the City requirements in the latest Regional Housing Needs Analysis (RHNA). In light of the Legislature’s repeated determinations in recent years that California is facing a statewide housing crisis, the State has provided the City with good reason to exercise its legislative discretion to facilitate the construction of new housing.

Government Code section 65889.5,subdivision (a)(1)(A), states that “[t]he lack of housing, including emergency shelters, is a critical problem that threatens the economic, environmental, and social quality of life in California.” Subdivision (a)(1)(D) of that section adds that “[m]any local governments do not give adequate attention to the economic, environmental, and social costs of decisions that result in disapproval of housing development projects, reduction in density of housing projects, and excessive standards for housing development projects.” The Reduced Density Alternative would result in 455 fewer units then the proposed Project, which is not consistent with Legislature’s guidance for solving California statewide housing crisis.

It should be noted that the City Council has broad discretion to approve the proposed Project if it finds it to be the best choice from a policy perspective, particularly in light of recent findings by the Legislature that the State is suffering 3385
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North 2.0-133 a housing crisis of historic proportions. CEQA constrains the City Council’s police power somewhat, but does not substantially reduce the robustness of that power.

Public Resources Code section 21004 provides that “[i]n mitigating or avoiding a significant effect of a project on the environment, a public agency may exercise only those express or implied powers provided by law other than [CEQA].

However, a public agency may use discretionary powers provided by such other law for the purpose of mitigating or avoiding a significant effect on the environment subject to the express or implied constraints or limitations that may be provided by law.” In other words, CEQA does not give agencies any power that they do not already possess, but does require agencies to exercise the powers they do have in order (i) to ascertain whether the environmental effects of their proposed actions would be significant, and if so, (ii) to formulate feasible mitigation measures or alternative courses of action that could be implemented pursuant to those powers. (See also CEQA Guidelines, § 15040; Kenneth Mebane Ranches v. Superior Court (1992) 10 Cal.App.4th 276, 291 [“CEQA does not grant a local public entity additional powers, independent of those granted by other laws”]; County of San Diego v. Grossmont-Cuyamaca Community College Dist. (2006) 141 Cal.App.4th 86, 102 [“‘an agency’s authority to impose mitigation measures must be based on legal authority other than CEQA’”].) Here, the City Council, like any other, has a robust police power, though it is circumscribed in some situations by state legislation intended to serve statewide purposes such as, for example, the need to provide housing during a time of crisislevel housing shortfalls. (See, e.g., Gov. Code, §§ 65589.5, subd. (j), 66300, subd. (b).) But generally, when a city or county is engaged in land use planning, the local agency’s CEQA obligation to adopt feasible mitigation measures or alternatives as means of lessening or avoiding significant environmental effects still leaves the agency with broad legislative discretion to achieve outcomes consistent with what the agency’s decisionmakers regard as desirable public policy. (See, e.g., City of Del Mar v. City of San Diego (1982) 133 Cal.App.3d 410, 417 [“‘feasibility’ under CEQA encompasses ‘desirability’ to the extent that desirability is based on a reasonable balancing of the relevant economic, environmental, social, and technological factors”]; California Native Plant Society v. City of Santa Cruz (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 957, 1001 [same]; San Diego Citizenry Group v. County of San Diego (2013) 219 Cal.App.4th 1, 17 [same]; Sierra Club v. County of Napa (2004) 121 Cal.App.4th 1490, 1506-1509 [upholding CEQA findings rejecting alternatives in reliance on applicant’s project objectives]; Citizens for Open Government v.

City of Lodi (2012) 205 Cal.App.4th 296, 314-315 [court upholds an agency action rejecting an alternative because it would not “entirely fulfill” a particular project 3386
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

2.0-134 Final Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North objective and “would be ‘substantially less effective’ in meeting” the lead agency’s “goals”]; and In re Bay-Delta Programmatic Environmental Impact Report Coordinated Proceedings (2008) 43 Cal.4th 1143, 1165, 1166 [“feasibility is strongly linked to achievement of each of the primary program objectives”; “a lead agency may structure its DEIR alternative analysis around a reasonable definition of underlying purpose and need not study alternatives that cannot achieve that basic goal”].)
In light of (i) the City’s broad police power, (ii) legislation limiting that power in light of the State’s unprecedented housing crisis, and (iii) the fact that CEQA case law interprets the concept of “feasibility” in a way that imposes minimal limits on an agency’s regulatory authority, the notion that the Reduced Density Alternative is the only legally permissible choice before the City Council is not accurate.

Response Q-11: The commentor provides a heading entitled: “e. The DEIR is Almost Entirely Premised on Unreasonable Assumptions About Population Growth Related to the Project.” The commenter then states the following:
“A key assumption that forms the bedrock of the DEIR is that the Project will result in population increases of 1,700 residents. The DEIR justification for this projection is simplistic—it takes the Department of Finance (2022) estimates of 2.81 persons per household.

This assumption of 1,700 resident growth is key to the DEIR and additional detail and support is needed than merely relying on Department of Finance figures. In particular, this methodology assumes that the 2.81 per person per household city-wide average holds true for Northern Clovis, as well as the types and styles of housing the Project proposes to build.

It is well known that the community/area of Northern Clovis is growing quickly and that families are moving into this area—causing almost all of the elementary schools in this area to be impacted. It is abundantly clear that the 2.81 per person household will is drastically low in light of local conditions.

Thus, because the 1,700-population grown estimate is such an important feature of this analysis, a more local study should be conducted to confirm and verify such assumptions. In particular, the DEIR should utilize additional resources to hone in on the per person/per household figure on a local level—including but not limited to the Census Tract Block Maps.”
• Population growth estimates are provided in the DEIR in Section 3.10. The population growth estimates utilize the most recent Department of Finance (2022) estimate for average number of persons residing in a dwelling unit in the 3387
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North 2.0-135 City of Clovis is 2.81. This is a reasonable metric for use in estimating population generated for the project.

Response Q-12: The commentor provides a heading entitled: “The DEIR Does Not Sufficiently Consider Feasible Mitigation Measures Related to the Substantial Traffic Impacts on the Community.” The commenter then states the following:

One of the largest defects of the DEIR is its inability to accurately address the major traffic concerns and considerations of the community. The DEIR admits that even with the proposed mitigation steps, the “Project will have a significant and unavoidable” impact on the environment. (3.13).

The City cannot approve the Project with significant and unavoidable impacts unless it finds that there are no additional mitigation measures or alternatives that are feasible that would reduce the significant and unavoidable impact. Pub. Res. Code§ 21081, 14 CCR§ 15091. The DEIR claims that the impacts are traffic are unavoidable. Yet there are additional feasible mitigation measures that would reduce the Project’s impacts but are not discussed in the EIR.

For example, the following mitigation measures were not addressed:
o The viability of public transit throughout the Project, including but not limited to shuttle services and/or subsidized transit passes; o Increase the number of biking and walking avenue throughout the Project;
o Consideration of some mixed-use development within the Project; o Implementation of traffic calming measures;
• The traffic concerns noted in this comment are addressed, in part, in Master Response 6 through 13. The recommendation for “traffic calming measures” is already part of the project and was considered in the analysis. The Project proposes to connect to an existing roundabout at the northerly project location along Sunnyside Avenue. Sidewalks and bike lanes will be constructed along the project frontage on Shepherd Avenue, Sunnyside Avenue, and Fordham Avenue.

Signal construction is proposed at the intersection of Sunnyside Avenue/Shepherd Avenue, along with the completion of Shepherd Avenue between Sunnyside and Fowler Avenues. These improvements would help address speeding and safety issues along these corridors. Addition of these project design features would help in traffic calming as well as enhance safety around the project site.

The project will also be implementing several project design features that will help eliminate gaps in the pedestrian circulation network around the project site.

As part of project frontage improvement, the project will be constructing 3388
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

2.0-136 Final Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North sidewalks, curb and gutter along Sunnyside Avenue, Shepherd Avenue, Heirloom Avenue and Fordham Avenue, and dedicate space for bike lanes along Shepherd Avenue. Additionally, installing signals with pedestrian crossings, will enhance pedestrian safety in the neighborhood. The signal that has been proposed at the intersection of Sunnyside Avenue/Shepherd Avenue (southwest corner of the project site), will help pedestrians accessing the Dry Creek trailhead safely with designated crosswalks at this location.

The project will also be implementing several project design features around the project site that will improve safety for children. As part of project frontage improvement, the project will be constructing sidewalks, curb and gutter along Sunnyside Avenue, Shepherd Avenue, Heirloom Avenue, and Fordham Avenue, and dedicate space for bike lanes along Shepherd Avenue. Additionally, installing a signal at the intersection of Sunnyside Avenue/Shepherd Avenue (southwest corner of the project site), which will help pedestrians accessing the Dry Creek trailhead safely with designated crosswalks at this location.

The recommendation to consider some mixed-used development within the Project was also already considered. Section 5.0 Alternatives presents the “Increased Density Mixed Use Alternative.” Under this alternative, the proposed Project would be developed at a higher density for the residential uses and would also include a mixed-use component to the alternative. Approximately 62 acres would be developed with 605 residential units under the medium-high density residential use, 10 acres would be developed with 195 apartments under the high-density residential use, and 5 acres would be developed with 108,000 square feet under the neighborhood commercial use. Transit is discussed within the DEIR in Section 3.13. Page 3.13.8 provides a discussion of the transit services available to the Study area.

Response Q-13: The commentor provides a heading entitled: “g. The Project’s Proposed Ingress/Egress From Stanford/Perrin Avenues is not Properly Analyzed In Light of the Actual Conditions of such Roads.” The commenter then provides several paragraphs supporting the statement.
• The traffic concerns noted in this comment are addressed in Master Response 6 through 13. Access to the project from existing streets will be provided by four driveways: two on Sunnyside Avenue, one on Perrin Road (Stanford/Perrin), and one on Shepherd Avenue. Except for the driveways on Shepherd Avenue and Perrin, all other project driveways will operate as full-access driveways. The driveway on Shepherd Avenue will operate as a Right-In Right-Out/Left-In (RIRO/LI) driveway, since Shepherd Avenue has a speed limit of 40 MPH along the project frontage and estimated to have significant amount of through traffic. The 3389
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North 2.0-137 driveway at Stanford/Perrin will be an exit only driveway and will provide emergency access. The project is estimated to add only nominal trips to the local roads including Perrin Road, Stanford Avenue, or in general, Fowler Avenue north of Shepherd Avenue. This is because, due to the local circulation network and location of activity centers in relation to the project, majority of the project traffic is estimated to travel south using Shepherd Avenue on to Clovis Avenue, Sunnyside Avenue, and Fowler Avenue. As included in the TIA, a sight distance analysis was conducted for all driveways to determine adequacy of sight for safe maneuver at the driveways using California Highway Design Manual (HDM) recommended methodology. As such, all the proposed project driveways achieve the adequate sight distances and have clear sight triangles for the drivers along the project frontage.

Additionally, the TIA and the DEIR identifies regional circulation improvements that would help alleviate traffic congestion and safety related issues. As included in Table 9-H of the TIA, and the DEIR, the project would be directly implementing circulation improvements around the project site and will be paying appropriate fees to the City for the future implementation of additional roadway widening and intersection improvements within the project study area when warranted.

As demonstrated in the TIA, implementation of these improvements would help alleviate local congestion issues and provide safe access to local schools that are under the Clovis Unified School District (CUSD).

Response Q-14: The commentor provides a heading entitled: “h. The DEIR’s Hydrology Analysis is Inadequate In That It Incorrectly Relies on Data Related to Hardpan.” The commenter then provides several paragraphs supporting the statement.
• The hardpan concerns noted in this comment are addressed in Master Response 4, and 5.

Response Q-15: The commentor provides a heading entitled: “i. The DEIR Hydrology Analysis is Inadequate in That if Fails to Take into Account Removal of the Pecan Trees at the Project Site that Dramatically Alter the Water Recharge Capabilities” The commenter then provides several paragraphs supporting the statement.
• The water concerns noted in this comment are addressed in Master Response 4 and 5.

Response Q-16: The commentor provides a heading entitled: “j. The DEIR Does Not Adequately Explain how the Project being Developed in a 100-year Flood Plain will not cause or trigger greater diversion of flood waters into neighboring communities, in particular the Quail Run community.” The commenter then states the following:
3390
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

2.0-138 Final Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North The DEIR recognizes that part of the Project lies within the 100-year flood zone (3.9- 29). However, when it comes to addressing such fact, the DEIR proposes that the homes built within such zone will be “elevated to or above the base flood elevation”.

Woefully omitted, however, from its analysis is how the Project will impact the immediately surrounding community given the fact that substantial grading will be done to raise the development to the required elevation.

While the homes built in the Project will be above the floodzone, the earthworks involved to enable that simply means that water will be displaced and flow elsewhere— likely into the Quail Run community. Notably the Quail Run community does not have storm drains and the existing drainage basins on each 2-acre parcel were not designed to accommodate the flood run off from the Project.

The DEIR does not sufficiently detail and describe the impacts of flooding on the immediate neighborhoods.
• Storm Drainage/Flooding is addressed in DEIR Section 3.9 Hydrology and Water Quality and in Section 3.14 Utilities. Specifically, Impact 3.9-5 presented on page

3.9-30 indicates that the majority of the Project site is located within the 500-year flood zone, and the northern and northeastern portion of the Project site is within the 100-year flood zone. It is noted that a small portion in the north of the Development Area is within the 100-year flood zone. The majority of the Development Area within the Project site is located in an area designated to have a minimal flood hazard. The DEIR indicates that flooding events can result in damage to structures, injury or loss of human and animal life, exposure of waterborne diseases, and damage to infrastructure. In addition, standing floodwater can destroy agricultural crops, undermine infrastructure and structural foundations, and contaminate groundwater. Page 3.9-31 indicates that the portions of the Project site that lie within the 100-year flood zone would require a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) before development would be allowed.

A LOMR is a document that officially revises a portion of the effective FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) according to requirements and procedures outlined in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) regulations. A LOMR allows FEMA to revise flood hazard information on a FIRM map via letter without physically revising and reprinting the entire map panel. The LOMR will reflect changes in elevation from grading and no flood insurance requirements would be imposed on structures in these areas once the LOMR is approved by FEMA. The LOMR process is a standard requirement for all new construction or substantial improvements of structures to ensure that they are elevated to or above the base flood elevation. Through compliance with these existing regulations, impacts would be less than significant. The runoff generated from the development of 3391
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North 2.0-139 the project site will flow to new storm drainage collection pipelines as required by the Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District and runoff will be piped to Basin BY located on the west side of Sunnyside Avenue north of Perrin Avenue.

Response Q-17: The commentor provides a heading entitled: “k. The DEIR Take an Impractical and Illogical Position on the Impact the Project Will Have on Neighborhood Schools.” The commenter then states the following:

The DEIR recognizes that “CUSD does not have existing capacity to accommodate projected students from new development.” (3.12-23). In particular, the DEIR notes that additional facilities will be needed by CUSD within the next 5 years. Notably, the CUSD does not own any school project sites within a reasonable distance from the Project. All these new children will have to flood into the existing schools which are already impacted.

Rather than discussing mitigation measures, the DEIR simply states that the development fees are sufficient. This is not careful or thoughtful planning. Having the funds to build schools is not the same as actually acquiring and building school properties.
• The Draft EIR addresses schools in Section 3.12 Public Services and Recreation.

Page 3 ends

Project Area. Page 3.12-22 provides an analysis of the Project’s impacts on schools. Here the DEIR indicates that the proposed Project is located within the service boundaries of the CUSD. The DEIR indicates that the Project site is nearest to Woods Elementary, approximately one mile southwest of the Project site, and Buchanan High School, approximately 1.7 miles southwest of the Project site.

The DEIR indicates that the proposed Project would directly cause population growth, including school-aged children that would attend the schools that serve the Project site and surrounding area. The DEIR then provides an estimate of the new students that would be generated by the Project (342 new students). The DEIR indicates that students within the Project site would most likely attend Woods Elementary and Buchanan High School, as they are the closest educational locations to the Project site, but notes that student placement is subject to CUSD’s determination.

The DEIR indicates that CUSD does not have existing capacity to accommodate projected students from new development and that CUSD will need additional school facilities during the next five years for approximately 2,339 students in grades TK-6, 496 students in grades 7-8, and 1,034 students in grades 9-12. The DEIR indicates that CUSD currently owns four elementary school sites (FowlerMcKinley, Minnewawa-Perrin, Minnewawa-International, and an elementary site in the Millerton Specific Plan Area) as well as the Bradley Educational Center site, 3392
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

2.0-140 Final Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North which would accommodate a future high school, intermediate school, and elementary school. The DEIR indicates that CUSD has school site capacity for all projected students in all grade levels, and thus no site acquisition costs are needed. The DEIR details the school fee system that collects money to be used for construction and reconstruction of school facilities, site development, relocatable classrooms on existing or future sites and other facilities necessitated by students generated by new development. The proposed Project is subject to those fees and will be appropriately paid to the CUSD for their use in providing school facilities under their State mandate.

Response Q-18: The commentor provides a heading entitled: “l. The DEIR Does Not Address the Major Concerns of Creating a County Island of the Quail Run Community and the Impact of the Project’s Odd, Illogical Shape.” The commenter then states the following:

Noticeably absent from the DEIR is the fact that the Project will annex an irregular Lshaped plot of land, thereby creating a County island of the Quail Run community. The DEIR recognizes that when it comes to SOI changes, that such changes must create logical and orderly boundaries. However, it is wholly silent on the fact that the Project annexation creates an illogical and disorderly boundary.

Creating County islands is something the City and County have resisted for years for a host of justifiable reasons. And yet, the DEIR is conspicuously silent on any discussion of how the creation of a County island will actually impact that community.

For example, on its discussion of public resources and policing, the DEIR is careful to point out that development fees will be sufficient to enable Clovis PD to hire any additional police as may be needed to police the Project. However, this analysis completely misses and fails to address how the Project will impact public resources on the County island. It is without a doubt that with 605 new homes and residents, that the Quail Run community will face a major uptick in property crimes. And yet, when a resident of Quail Run calls for law enforcement—it is not Clovis PD which responds, but only the County Sherrif’s Office. The County Sherrif’s Office is already stretched thin and the creation of the County island will lead to increased response times.

Indeed, throughout the entire 626-page report, the DEIR only refers to the County Sheriff’s office a single isolated instance. The DEIR is wholly inadequate as it ignores how crime and policing arising from the Project will impact the proposed County island. • Section 3.10-6 discusses annexations, including the role of Fresno LAFCo. Page

COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North 2.0-141 The DEIR indicates that the proposed Project includes an amendment of the City’s SOI to include the entirety the approximately 155-acre Project site. The area is currently located in the City’s Planning Area, but outside of the City’s SOI. The amendment of the City’s SOI will require an application and approval by the Fresno LAFCo. The SOI amendment would be reviewed by the City and LAFCo prior to proceeding with the requested annexation. If the SOI Amendment is approved, the Project would then be able to begin the annexation process.

The DEIR indicates that the proposed Project includes the adoption of pre-zoning for the proposed annexation area, which will serve to regulate the uses of land and structures within the Project area. The Project site is currently located outside of the Clovis City limits, and therefore does not have City-designated zoning. The proposed Project includes a request for Development Area prezoning (which is consistent with the proposed General Plan Land Use designation). The pre-zoning request is for Single-Family Planned Residential Development Zoning (R-1-PRD) zoning designation over the Development Area lots. The R-1-PRD district is consistent with the proposed Medium-High Density Residential land use designation of the General Plan. The proposed City of Clovis zoning for the Project site is shown on Figure 2.0-9. The Project will be subject to the development standards as described in the Municipal Code. The Municipal Code is proposed to ensure consistency between land use and zoning designations.

The City has continued to plan for orderly growth to the north of the City, including the area that includes the Project site.

Response Q-19: The commentor provides a heading entitled: “m. The DEIR Fails to Consider the Prime Farmland Designation and Relies on Developers’ Self-Serving Statements that Farming is 3394
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

2.0-142 Final Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North No Longer Viable.” The commenter then provides several paragraphs supporting the statement.
• The Draft EIR on page 3.2-16 indicates that the California Department of Conservation has designated approximately 63.60 acres of the Project site as Prime Farmland and 11.44 acres of the Project site as Farmland of Statewide Importance. This is reflected on Figure 3.2-1. Land designated as such generally consists of the qualities that make a site good farmland. However, the Draft EIR also indicates on page 3.2-16, that the California Department of Conservation notes that these designations do not necessarily reflect all relevant factors for agricultural production, and that they developed the Land Evaluation and Site Assessment (LESA) to evaluate the significance of the agricultural conversions such as what is proposed. The City utilized the LESA model to evaluate the sitespecific characteristics more closely, and after evaluating the site-specific soil characteristics, project size, surrounding uses, agricultural protection zones, water resources availability, and ongoing economic feasibility of agricultural operations utilizing the LESA Model, the model showed that the conversion of the land on the Project site is not a significant impact according to the Department of Conservation thresholds. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would have a less than significant impact relative to agricultural conversion. This environmental conclusion considers site specific characteristics, such as the existence of a hardpan within the upper horizon of the soil profile (discussed in Master Response 4 and 5), the project size, surrounding urban uses, lack of agricultural protection zones in the zone of influence, lack of water resources, and ongoing economic feasibility of agricultural operations due to other factors.

While farming has historically occurred on the Project site, and on adjacent properties before they too were developed, it currently is an economic challenge to farm the Project site based on the current circumstances of urbanization and an insecure water source for irrigation. The insecurity of groundwater under the Project site is well documented by citizens in the vicinity, and that insecurity of water is not limited to just the neighboring citizens, it applies to the agricultural operation also.

Response Q-20: The commentor provides a heading entitled: “n. The Project Fails to Consider or Evaluate Impacts on Kit Fox Which Are Known to Exist Near the Project Area.” The commenter then provides a paragraph supporting the statement.
• San Joaquin kit fox (SJKF) is addressed in the Draft EIR on page 3.4-11, and 3.4-28.

The SJKF is a federally endangered and state threatened species. They generally inhabit saltbush scrub, grassland, oak, savanna, and freshwater scrub in the San Joaquin Valley, and adjacent open foothills to the west. 3395
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North 2.0-143 The Project site is characterized as frequently disturbed from active agricultural activities, and as a result, the Project site does not contain high quality habitat for the SJKF. The CDFW has not documented any SJKF within nine miles of the Project site. The field surveys did not reveal any dens on the Project site so there is no active, or recent past, occupation by SJKF. The historical agricultural activities and denser orchard canopy make this site not ideal. It is noted that there are other species of canids, including grey fox and coyote, that are more likely to occur in the vicinity, and it is possible that one was mistaken for a SJKF on the commenter’s walk. There are no documented occurrences of a SJKF den in the vicinity, and it is not clear where such a transient SJKF in the vicinity would be traveling to and from. Overall, given the current condition of the Project site, and the absence of SJKF dens, development of the Project is anticipated to have a less than significant impact on SJKF. It is noted that the California Department of Fish and Wildlife has reviewed the Biological Chapter of the EIR and does not have issue with the analysis of SJKF.

Response Q-21: The commentor provides a conclusion to the letter and states: “for the foregoing reasons, I urge the City to prepare and recirculate a revised DEIR addressing the above shortcomings.” • There is nothing in the record that warrants a recirculation of a Draft EIR. The Draft EIR is an adequate informational document intended to describe the Project, analyze impacts, analyze alternatives, and present feasible mitigation to avoid, minimize, or mitigate an environmental impact. The Final EIR is intended to provide clarifications, and amplify the information that is already provided in the Draft EIR. The comment is noted and will be provided to the City for their consideration.
3396
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

2.0-144 Final Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North R-1
R-3
R-2
3397
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North 2.0-145 R-4
3398
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

2.0-146 Final Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North R-4 Cont.
3399
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North 2.0-147 R-4 Cont.

R-5
3400
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

2.0-148 Final Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North R-5 Cont.
3401
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North 2.0-149 R-6
R-7
3402
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

2.0-150 Final Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North R-7 Cont.
3403
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North 2.0-151 Response to Letter R: Norman D. Morrison IV, Attorney
Response R-1: The comment serves as an introduction to the comment letter. The commenter states:
“This letter is submitted in response and opposition to the Draft Environmental Impact Report submitted by De Novo Planning Group on behalf of Leo Wilson and Wilson Homes for the “Shepherd North” proposal located at the intersection of Shepherd Avenue and Sunnyside Avenue. This letter is submitted on behalf of myself and numerous other concerned neighbors, most of whom live along Sunnyside Avenue and the streets connecting to Sunnyside, and whom will be directly affected by approval of the proposed project and the related impacts.”
• This comment is noted. The comment does not raise any CEQA concerns and no further response to this comment is warranted in the EIR.

Response R-2: The commentor states: “Initially, it is noted that the Notice of Availability states that any response must be received by the City by September 4, 2023. As you are aware, September 4, 2023, was a State and Federal Holiday, and the City’s offices were not open. We assume this was a calendaring oversight by the City. Further, it is noted that the Notice of Availability does not provide any address for submitting an electronic response.

Accordingly, the deadline for submittals is extended to Tuesday, September 5, 2023, as it otherwise impermissibly shortens public response period. (See Rominger v. County of Colusa (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 690, 707-708 (disapproved of on other grounds by Union of Medical Marijuana Patients, Inc. v. City of San Diego (2019) 7 Cal.5th 1171, 1188- 1194.)”
• To clarify, the City did establish the 45-day review period for the EIR in accordance with the statutory mandate. During the review period, however, it was discovered that the public review end date would fall on a holiday. Once this was recognized, the City extended the public review period an extra day (46 days total review) to ensure that there was additional time beyond the holiday to receive comments. It is noted that the City received an additional letter on September 6, 2023. Despite the fact that the letter was submitted after the close of the comment period, it was accepted by the City and included in the Final EIR. As shown in the Table 2.0-1, there were five comment letters received dated September 5th, and one comment letter dated September 6th. This reflects the City’s extension of the review period. It is also noted that the commenter’s letter is dated September 4, 2023, but was submitted electronically to the City on September 5, 2023. In accordance with the City’s extension, the commenter’s letter is included in the Final EIR. It is also noted that the State Clearinghouse database (CEQAnet) reflects a public review end date of September 5, 2023.

Response R-3: The commentor states: “A review of the proposed Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) demonstrates that it is incomplete, flawed, reliant upon inapplicable and outdated 3404
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

2.0-152 Final Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North information, internally contradictory, and where it does admit to significant impacts, it fails to discuss any methods of remedying these impacts. Additionally, portions of the DEIR are in conflict with the Dry Creek Preserve Master Plan and the ordinances of both the City of Clovis and the County of Fresno.

Accordingly, we request that the City reject the DEIR, and require Leo Wilson and Wilson Homes to submit an updated, corrected DEIR that adequately addresses the impacts associated with the proposed development on neighboring landowners and streets, as well as what mitigation measures Leo Wilson and Wilson Homes are willing to implement to address and mitigate the impacts they concede are unavoidable, significant, and arise from the proposed development.”
• This comment is noted. The assertions and opinions provided in these paragraphs will be provided to the City for their consideration, however, they do not require a direct response under this response.

Response R-4: The commentor states: “The DEIR Fails to Adequately Analyze Traffic Impacts on Surrounding Streets, Which Are Already Deteriorating and Becoming Increasingly Unsafe and Dangerous Due to Previous Project Approvals Without Any Mitigation Measures; The DEIR Additionally Fails to Identify Any Mitigation Measures for Traffic on Adjacent Streets, and Relies On Outdated and Inaccurate Figures.” This statement is then followed numerous paragraphs providing support for their statement. • A few of the concerns in this comment are addressed in Master Response 8, 9, and 11. The TIA includes contribution of traffic from all future developments that would add traffic to the TIA study area. As such, the traffic improvements recommended as part of this study accounts for cumulative traffic impact from all future projects, as well as the proposed project. Additionally, the traffic analysis takes into consideration the effects of school traffic under existing and future long-range conditions. The improvements proposed in the study would help address the traffic congestion issues from all future developments, as well as school related traffic within the project vicinity. This includes both vehicular and non-motorized traffic issues as described in the TIA.

Currently, there is no signalized control along Sunnyside Avenue between Behymer Avenue and Alluvial Avenue. Among the major intersections along this corridor, the intersection of Sunnyside Avenue/Shepherd Avenue is an all-way stop-controlled intersection, Sunnyside Avenue/Teague Avenue is a two-way stop-controlled intersection, and Sunnyside Avenue/Nees Avenue is an all-way stop-controlled intersection.

As included in the TIA, signals have been proposed at the intersection of Sunnyside Avenue/Shepherd Avenue, and Sunnyside Avenue/Nees Avenue, along 3405
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North 2.0-153 with other improvements at these locations. As such, with implementation of these signals along this corridor, the corridor is anticipated to experience improved traffic flow, and alleviate current safety concerns. This is after account ting for the traffic from the project and other adjacent projects in the vicinity.

Both signals are in the City’s Development Impact Fee program and the City will be implementing these improvements.

The project will also be implementing several project design features that will help eliminate gaps in the pedestrian circulation network around the project site.

Response R-5: The commentor states: “The DEIR Fails to Adequately Analyze the Availability of Water Supplies for the Development, And Completely Fails to Identify, Address or Analyze the 3406
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

2.0-154 Final Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North Unavoidable Loss of Recharge That Will Result From the Project and Its Effects on Neighboring Landowners.” This statement is then followed numerous paragraphs providing support for their statement.
• This comment regarding water is addressed under Master Response 3, 4, and 5.

Response R-6: The commentor states: “DEIR Fails to Adequately Analyze or Address the Loss of Prime Farmland and Species Habitat Associated with the Project, or Any Mitigation Measures.” This statement is then followed numerous paragraphs providing support for their statement.
• The Draft EIR on page 3.2-16 indicates that the California Department of Conservation has designated approximately 63.60 acres of the Project site as Prime Farmland and 11.44 acres of the Project site as Farmland of Statewide Importance. This is reflected on Figure 3.2-1. Land designated as such generally consists of the qualities that make a site good farmland. However, the Draft EIR also indicates on page 3.2-16, that the California Department of Conservation notes that these designations do not necessarily reflect all relevant factors for agricultural production, and that they developed the Land Evaluation and Site Assessment (LESA) to evaluate the significance of the agricultural conversions such as what is proposed. The City utilized the LESA model to evaluate the sitespecific characteristics more closely, and after evaluating the site-specific soil characteristics, project size, surrounding uses, agricultural protection zones, water resources availability, and ongoing economic feasibility of agricultural operations utilizing the LESA Model, the model showed that the conversion of the land on the Project site is not a significant impact according to the Department of Conservation thresholds. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would have a less than significant impact relative to agricultural conversion. This environmental conclusion considers site specific characteristics, such as the existence of a hardpan within the upper horizon of the soil profile, the project size, surrounding urban uses, lack of agricultural protection zones in the zone of influence, lack of water resources, and ongoing economic feasibility of agricultural operations due to other factors. While farming has historically occurred on the Project site, and on adjacent properties before they too were developed, it currently is an economic challenge to farm the Project site based on the current circumstances of urbanization and an insecure water source for irrigation. The insecurity of groundwater under the Project site is well documented by citizens in the vicinity, and that insecurity of water is not limited to just the neighboring citizens, it applies to the agricultural operation also. • Species habitat is addressed in Section 3.4 Biological Resources. Page 3.4-4 through 3.4-12 provide a discussion of the types of habitats found on the Project site and the vicinity, as well as an extensive list of special status species that are 3407
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North 2.0-155 documented within a nine-quad search radius of the California Natural Diversity Database. Impact 3.4-1 through 3.4-5 include an analysis of the potential for impacts on special status species and their habitats. Where potential impacts were identified, mitigation was presented (i.e., Mitigation Measure 3.4-1 and 3.4- 2). Impacts 3.4-6 through 3.4-8 include an analysis of the potential for impacts on certain habitats such as wetlands, riparian, sensitive natural communities, wildlife corridors, and wildlife nursery sites.

Response R-7: The commentor states: “The DEIR Fails to Adequately Identify, Analyse and Identify Mitigation for Cumulative Impacts.” This statement is then followed numerous paragraphs providing support for their statement.
• A cumulative analysis is presented in Section 4.0 Other CEQA-Required Topics.

The analysis begins on Page 4.0-1 under the heading “4.1 Cumulative Setting and Impact Analysis”. The discussion starts with an Introduction on page 4.0-1, and a Cumulative Setting on page 4.0-2. The Method of Analysis is described on page

4.0-2 through 4.0-3. Here, the DEIR states “There are two approaches to identifying cumulative projects and the associated impacts. The list approach identifies individual projects known to be occurring or proposed in the surrounding area in order to identify potential cumulative impacts. The projection approach uses a summary of projections in adopted General Plans or related planning documents to identify potential cumulative impacts. This EIR uses the projection approach for the cumulative analysis and considers the development anticipated to occur upon buildout of the various General Plans in the area.” Page 4.0-3 through 4.0-26 presents a Cumulative Analysis with 26 different impact statements covering all CEQA environmental topics, including traffic, water, species, loss of prime farmland, noise, pollution, and the need for additional services. It is noted that the traffic analysis does consider a cumulative scenario, which is reflected in the modeling and output data. It is noted that Impact 4.20:

Under Cumulative conditions, Project development would result in VMT increases that are greater than 87 percent of Baseline conditions. This was identified as a significant and unavoidable impact in the cumulative impact analysis.
3408
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

2.0-156 Final Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North S-2
S-1
3409
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North 2.0-157 S-5
S-3
S-7
S-6
S-4
3410
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

2.0-158 Final Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North S-8
3411
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North 2.0-159 Response to Letter S: David Padilla, California Department of Transportation Response S-1: The commentor provides a brief introduction to the letter. • This comment is noted. The DEIR and the TIA has addressed all previous California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) comments.

Response S-2: The commentor states the following:
“1. It is projected that the project will significantly impact the SR 168 and Herndon Avenue interchange eastbound (EB) ramps. The eastbound off-ramps will be impacted by the proposed project due to the substantial amount of queue storage it currently projects during the near-term PM peak hour traffic. The utilization of the left-turn lanes on Herndon Avenue heading north onto Clovis Avenue will lead to congestion on the SR 168 and Herndon Avenue off-ramps. It is recommended that the median island on Herndon Avenue be modified to allow for increasing the storage capacity on Herndon Avenue’s left turn lane onto Clovis Avenue which will help alleviate queuing on the SR 168 EB off-ramp.” • There is currently 240-feet storage for the dual eastbound left-turn lanes at the intersection of Clovis Avenue/Herndon Avenue. Although an extension of the storage may improve level of service, congestion is not a traffic impact following the enactment of SB 743. The City’s Circulation Element also does not contemplate a particular length of storage for the left-turn lanes, and the Project is otherwise consistent with the City’s Circulation Element. As a result, the storage as currently contemplated would not result in a potentially significant environmental effect. Further, due to geometric constraints, it is not feasible to extend the storage lanes further nor would further storage result in a material difference in congestion.

Response S-3: The commentor states the following:
“2. It is expected that operational issues may arise with the SR 168 and Fowler Avenue westbound (WB) ramps. Based on the queuing analysis conducted for the morning peak hours in 2028, there seems to be no specific lane allotted for making right turns. However, the TIA projects that vehicles will turn right onto SR 168 and head west. This could potentially cause a backlog in the southbound (SB) through-lane on Fowler Avenue for right-turn users. It is recommended that the City consider proposing a designated rightturn lane in the future to alleviate the anticipated issue.” • Comment noted. Based on the summary of levels of service (LOS) analysis included in chapters 8 and 9 of the TIA, this intersection is forecast to operate at a satisfactory LOS under existing, Near-term, and Cumulative conditions under both without and plus project conditions. The City will coordinate with Caltrans for further assessment in determination of requirements of a designated southbound right-turn lane at this location.
3412
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

2.0-160 Final Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North Response S-4: The commentor states the following:
“3. The project proponent should be responsible for optimizing signal timing, along with construction of all improvements that are identified within the State right-of-way (ROW), including but no limited to roadway pavement improvements, curb, gutter, sidewalks, driveways, and drainage facilities.”
• The TIA evaluated the following four intersections under the jurisdiction of Caltrans:
o SR-168 Westbound Ramps/Herndon Avenue
o SR-168 Eastbound Ramps/Herndon Avenue
o Fowler Avenue/SR-168 Westbound Ramps, and
o Fowler Avenue/SR-168 Eastbound Ramps.
• Among these four intersections, except for the intersection of Fowler Avenue/SR168 Eastbound Ramps, all other intersections are forecast to operate satisfactorily under all scenarios. The intersection of Fowler Avenue/SR-168 Eastbound Ramps is currently operating at a deficient LOS and is forecast to deteriorate further in future as shown in Tables 8-A, 8-C, and 8-E of the TIA. As such, the project does not create any new operational deficiency at this location, rather adds to the existing or forecasted deficiency at this location. Therefore, as included in Table 9-H of the TIA, the project will be paying its fair share for the recommended improvements at this intersection through the RTMF fee described below. The City will be coordinating with Caltrans to schedule projects with the Regional Transportation program.

The Fresno County Regional Transportation Mitigation Fee (RTMF) was created to fulfill one of the terms of the Measure “C” extension ballot measure, which was approved by Fresno County voters in 2006. The RTMF became effective on January 1 2010. The RTMF is “intended to ensure that future development contributes to its fair share towards the cost of infrastructure to mitigate the cumulative, indirect regional transportation impacts of new growth in a manner consistent with the provisions of the State of California Mitigation Fee Act.” The fees help fund improvements needed to maintain the target level of service in the face of higher traffic volumes brought on by new developments. As such, any new development within Fresno County, including developments within the City are required to pay the RTMF fee based on the adopted fee structure. The proposed project would be required to pay the RTMF fee to fund improvements and maintenance of the regional roadway network.

Response S-5: The commentor states the following:
3413
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North 2.0-161

4. The DEIR notes that the project would have Significant and Unavoidable Impact regarding the vehicle miles traveled (VMT). The project intends to implement design features to help reduce project VMT which include pedestrian infrastructure, improve street connectivity, bicycle infrastructure/improvements, and provide electric vehicle (EV) parking and EV charging infrastructure. We highly encourage the project proponents incorporate the VMT mitigation strategies that were identified and to work closely with local Transit Agencies and the City in finding opportunities to improve multimodal transportation and help mitigate the VMT impacts.”
• Comment noted. The project will implement feasible VMT reduction strategies as included in section 2 of the TIA. Additionally, the project applicant will coordinate with the City with regards to implementation of these VMT reduction strategies.

Response S-6: The commentor states the following:

5. As mentioned in the previous comment letter on prior phases of the project and given the VMT impact identified in the DEIR, we recommend the City consider creating a VMT Mitigation Impact Fee to help reduce potential impacts of projects on the local roads and the State Highway System. It is also recommended that the City consider incorporating the identified road improvements into the City’s existing impact fee programs.” • Comment noted.

Response S-7: The commentor states the following:

6. An encroachment permit must be obtained for all proposed activities for placement of encroachments within, under or over the State highway rights-of-way. Activity and work planned in the State right-of-way shall be performed to State standards and specifications, at no cost to the State. Engineering plans, calculations, specifications, and reports (documents) shall be stamped and signed by a licensed Engineer or Architect. Engineering documents for encroachment permit activity and work in the State right-of-way may be submitted using English Units. The Permit Department and the Environmental Planning Branch will review and approve the activity and work in the State right-of-way before an encroachment permit is issued. The Streets and Highways Code Section 670 provides Caltrans discretionary approval authority for projects that encroach on the State Highway System. Encroachment permits will be issued in accordance with Streets and Highway Codes, Section 671.5, “Time Limitations.” Encroachment permits do not run with the land.

A change of ownership requires a new permit application. Only the legal property owner or his/her authorized agent can pursue obtaining an encroachment permit.” • Comment noted. The project applicant will coordinate with Caltrans staff to obtain necessary encroachment permits in case the project is implementing any improvement within Caltrans right-of-way.

Response S-8: The commentor states the following:
3414
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

2.0-162 Final Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North

7. Prior to an encroachment permit application submittal, the project proponent is required to schedule a “Pre-Submittal” meeting with District 6 Encroachment Permit Office. To schedule this meeting, please call the Caltrans Encroachment Permit Office - District 6: 1352 W. Olive, Fresno, CA 93778, at (559) 488-4058” • Comment noted. The project applicant will coordinate with Caltrans staff for scheduling a pre-submittal meeting.
3415
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North 2.0-163 T-1
T-2
3416
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

2.0-164 Final Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North T-3
3417
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North 2.0-165 Response to Letter T: Jacqueline and Matthew Ruiz 2, Residents of Clovis Response T-1: The commentor states the following: “My name is Jacqueline Ruiz and I have lived in the Quail Run development with my family since 2017. My husband and I purchased our home on East Lexington Avenue because we wanted to raise a family in a country setting. The Quail Run neighborhood was the perfect place for us to start our family.

When we bought our property, we were surrounded by orchards, which provided a beautiful rural setting. We are now adjacent to major development from Lennar.

Additionally, the pecan trees behind our home are being taken out.

We have attended many meetings over the years to voice our concerns about the development and water, as these new development projects have continued around our neighborhood.”
• This comment serves as an introductory statement and is noted. The commenters concerns are more fully detailed in the following comments.

Response T-2: The commentor states the following: “Our main concern with the latest proposed project by Wilson Homes is water. We have drilled new wells and had very minimal success in finding any water. Construction around our neighborhood will have a negative impact on our home as the new development will decrease available undeveloped land for groundwater recharge. Our Quail Run neighborhood on county land has relied on natural processes of replenishing our underground water supply for 30+ years. If this next phase of development is allowed to proceed to the south and east of us, we will be an isolated island. Access to water will be more of a challenge and more cost. My family and my neighbors moved to this development to city get away from the city, but the city is now in our backyards. We will soon be staring at cinder block fences and 2 story houses that are 10 feet apart. Not to mention the noise and light pollution that will most definitely impact our home, as it borders the proposed Wilson Development. Particularly the green space park that is situated directly south of our property.”
• The comment regarding water is addressed under Master Response 4 and 5. The comment regarding noise is addressed under Master Response 17. The comment regarding light is addressed under Master Response 18. The comment regarding green space park is addressed under Master Response 16. The comment regarding their concern with two story houses backing up to their house is noted.

The project, however, is not proposed as a pre-plotted subdivision that identifies specific housing architecture or floor plans on each lot. For example, we do not have any knowledge of whether a one- or two-story residence would be built adjacent to the commenter’s residence. The zoning code dictates the development standards for zones throughout the City and it will dictate the standards that apply to the proposed subdivision. One- and two-story residences are allowed up to the height limits defined in the zone. The concept of limiting 3418
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

2.0-166 Final Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North the height of homes adjacent to the commenter’s residence can be presented as a concept for the Applicant to consider, but City’s zoning code does not restrict the height to a one story. This concern does not present an environmental impact pursuant to CEQA.

Master Response 14 provides detailed discussion of annexation. The proposed annexation includes lands contiguous with the current City limits and parcels that would be within the expanded SOI. It is noted that parcels proposed for annexation would involve the creation of an island of unincorporated territory to the south of the site. It is noted that LAFCo may approve an annexation that creates an island where it finds that the application of this policy would be detrimental to the orderly development of the community and that a reasonable effort has been made to include the island in the annexation, but that inclusion is not feasible at this time. The island area is designated as Focus Area 7 in the General Plan, and is located within the Herndon – Shepherd Specific Plan Area.

The General Plan identifies Focus Area 7 for Residential Use, which would require all proposed projects within Focus Area 7 to be consistent with the Dry Creek Preserve Master Plan if it were to be annexed into the City. This area is currently within the SOI, but the property owners in Focus Area 7 do not currently desire to annex into the City. The City has continued to plan for orderly growth to the north of the City, including the area that includes the Project site.

Response T-3: The commentor states the following: “However, because water is our main concern, we would ask for a resolution or agreement between the developers and the officials who are elected to represent us to give us an easy and cost-effective option for access to city water.

Clearly, our number one wish would be for no more development, but we understand that development is a necessary part of the growth of Clovis. We feel that a compromise should be made to provide access to water at a reasonable cost, and with assistance from Wilson Homes, as we will be subject to many extremely negative factors including increases in noise, light, traffic, and high density housing directly adjacent to our property.” • The comment regarding water is addressed under Master Response 3, 4 and 5.

The comment regarding the provision of City water services is addressed under Master Response 14. The comment regarding noise is addressed under Master Response 17. The comment regarding light is addressed under Master Response

18. The comment regarding green space park is addressed under Master Response 16. The comment regarding housing directly adjacent to their property is addressed under Response T-2. Concerns regarding the provision of City utility services are addressed in Master Response 14. The overall concerns are noted and will be provided to the City for their consideration. 3419
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North 2.0-167 U-1
3420
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

2.0-168 Final Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North U-1 Cont.
3421
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North 2.0-169 3422
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

2.0-170 Final Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North 3423
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North 2.0-171 3424
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

2.0-172 Final Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North 3425
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North 2.0-173 3426
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

2.0-174 Final Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North 3427
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North 2.0-175 3428
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

2.0-176 Final Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North U-2
3429
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North 2.0-177 U-2 Cont.
3430
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

2.0-178 Final Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North U-2 Cont.
3431
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North 2.0-179 U-2 Cont.
3432
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

2.0-180 Final Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North U-2 Cont.
3433
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North 2.0-181 U-2
3434
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

2.0-182 Final Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North 3435
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North 2.0-183 3436
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

2.0-184 Final Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North 3437
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North 2.0-185 3438
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

2.0-186 Final Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North 3439
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North 2.0-187 3440
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

2.0-188 Final Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North 3441
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North 2.0-189 3442
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

2.0-190 Final Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North 3443
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North 2.0-191 Response to Letter U: Denise Wade, Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District Response U-1: The commentor notes that they previously provided comments on the Notice of Preparation on June 10, 2022, and that the comments from that letter are still applicable.

The noted that they have enclosed that letter for the City’s reference. The commenter then provides five specific comments on the EIR, including recommended edits to the Agricultural Resources and Utilities discussions.

This comment is noted. Each of the recommended edits have been incorporated in the FEIR. The edits can be seen in Section 3.0 Errata.

Response U-2: The commentor has included June 10, 2022 comment letter.

This comment is noted. This letter is included in the Draft EIR in Appendix A and was utilized to prepare the Utilities Section of the DEIR. No further response to this comment is warranted in the EIR.
3444
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

2.0-192 Final Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North V-4
V-3
V-5
V-2
V-1
3445
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North 2.0-193 Response to Letter V: Harmeet Gurm, Resident of Clovis
Response V-1: The commentor states the following: “I reside at 5037 E Perrin Rd Clovis - in the Quail Run Community, north of shepherd and east of Sunnyside. After reviewing the DEIR report, I found multiple areas which are concerning and do not represent all the facts correctly.” This comment serves as an introduction to the letter and notes that they have multiple areas which are concerning and inaccurate, which they discuss in the following comments. This comment is noted. No further response to this comment is warranted in the EIR.

Response V-2: The commentor states the following: “For instance - the exit planned at Stanford/Perrin corner for the upcoming Wilson community is very concerning. Stanford is a small winding street with no curbside pavement and will not be able to handle the traffic of the new proposed development. Current speed posted is 10mph. Kids, bicycle riders are common in this road and additional exit of this new proposed community with increased traffic will significantly enhance the chances of a serious accident.” • This comment regarding traffic and circulation is partially addressed in Master Response 7 through 14. Access to the project from existing streets will be provided by four driveways: two on Sunnyside Avenue, one on Perrin Road (Stanford/Perrin), and one on Shepherd Avenue. As such, the project will have three other driveways along Sunnyside Avenue and Shepherd Avenue, along with the driveway on Stanford Avenue/Perrin Road. The driveway at Stanford/Perrin will be an exit only driveway and will provide emergency access. The project is also estimated to add only nominal trips to these local roads including Stanford, Ticonderoga, or to Fowler Avenue north of Shepherd Avenue. This is because, due to the local circulation network and location of activity centers in relation to the project, majority of the project traffic is estimated to travel south, accessing Sunnyside Avenue and Shepherd Avenue on to Clovis Avenue, Sunnyside Avenue, and Fowler Avenue, as shown in the TIA. As such, the project traffic will have nominal effects on the local roads in the neighborhood, including Stanford Avenue, Perrin Road, and Ticonderoga.

The TIA and DEIR also identifies regional circulation improvements that would help alleviate traffic congestion and safety related issues in the project vicinity.

As included in Table 9-H of the TIA, and the DEIR, the project would be directly implementing circulation improvements around the project site and will be paying appropriate fees to the City for implementation of additional roadway widening and intersection improvements within the project study area.

As included in the TIA, a sight distance analysis was conducted for all driveways to determine adequacy of sight for safe maneuver at the driveways using California Highway Design Manual (HDM) recommended methodology. As such, 3446
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

2.0-194 Final Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North all the proposed project driveways achieve the adequate sight distances and have clear sight triangles for the drivers along the project frontage.

Response V-3: The commentor states the following: “Removal of pecan trees would reduce surface water retention, thereby depleting the water table of the already water challenged area north of shepherd. Without proper planning and provision of recharging the area's water table will cause significant impact to the 18 home community north of this proposed development.”
This comment regarding water is addressed in Master Response 3, 4 and 5.

Response V-4: The commentor states the following: “Density of the proposed homes is quite high and will bring in high traffic to the already busy areas of fowler, perrin and sunnyside. The assumptions made in DEIR to calculate the traffic are flawed and needs revision to show the actual ground reality of the community and the roads.” • This comment regarding traffic and circulation is addressed in Master Response 6 through 13. The project proposes to construct 605 single-family residences. The surrounding areas in the neighborhood also mostly constitute of similar singlefamily residential developments. Additionally, several new projects within the area also proposes single-family residential developments. As such, the project does not propose any land use atypical to the area, or any land use that is estimated to change the neighborhood traffic pattern. Therefore, trip generation and distribution pattern from the project is also expected to be similar to the neighborhood trip patterns. In fact, implementation of recommended improvements as included in the TIA would help alleviate traffic congestion and safety related issues within the project vicinity, as well as existing and future residential communities in the area.

The project is estimated to add only nominal trips to Fowler Avenue north of Shepherd Avenue. This is because, due to the local circulation network and location of activity centers in relation to the project, majority of the project traffic is estimated to travel south using Shepherd Avenue on to Clovis Avenue, Sunnyside Avenue, and Fowler Avenue. Based on the TIA, only 15 percent of project traffic is anticipated to utilize Fowler Avenue.

COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North 2.0-195 related traffic within the project vicinity. This includes both vehicular and nonmotorized traffic issues as described in the TIA.

Response V-5: The commentor states the following: “Lastly but not the least, it is against the principle of city of clovis to create island community areas. The 18 homes should be annexed to city, so as to create proper defined shape of the community development. In addition, at the very least, the builder of the proposed development and city should try to help the community of these 18 homes by bringing in the utility lines to address their concerns of water, and sewer…In the light of above facts, I would like to formally state my objection to current DEIR report.”
• This comment regarding annexation, island creation, and the provision of utilities to adjacent properties is addressed in Master Response 14. Section 3.10-6 discusses annexations, including the role of Fresno LAFCo. Page 3.10-6 indicates that Fresno LAFCo is responsible for coordinating orderly reorganization to local jurisdictional boundaries, including annexations. Any annexation of the Project site to the City is subject to LAFCo approval, and LAFCo will review proposed annexations for consistency with LAFCo’s Annexation Policies and Procedures.

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

2.0-196 Final Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North Fresno LAFCo. The SOI amendment would be reviewed by the City and LAFCo prior to proceeding with the requested annexation. If the SOI Amendment is approved, the Project would then be able to begin the annexation process.

The City has continued to plan for orderly growth to the north of the City, including the area that includes the Project site.

For clarification, the Development Area is proposed for annexation, while the Non-development Area is not proposed for annexation. This means that the Development Area would receive City services once annexed, and the Nondevelopment Area would be eligible for annexation at some future time. A future annexation of the Non-development area would require the property owners of those parcels to organize and agree to be annexed into the City, which has not been done as part of the current proposal. Additionally, it does not appear that the current sentiment from parcel owners in the non-development area would be supportive of annexation into the City at this time. It is noted, however, that the SOI expansion, which does not require the approval of the parcel owners, would allow for future annexation of the non-development area into the City of Clovis if desired by the property owners at some later date. If the SOI expansion were approved, the non-development area would remain in the unincorporated County, but would be within the City’s SOI. If annexed at some future time, the parcels could be served by City water and sewer. However, annexing these parcels and providing City water and sewer services is not currently proposed.

The commenters objection to the Draft EIR is noted.
3449
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North 2.0-197 W-1
3450
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

2.0-198 Final Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North Response to Letter W: Kevin Kercher, Resident of Clovis Response W-1: The commentor provides a brief statement that they “…do not support the Wilson Water Project.”
For clarification, the proposed Project is an application for residential development entitlements, and not specifically a “Water Project.” Nevertheless, this comment is noted.

The comment will be provided to the City for consideration. No further response to this comment is warranted in the EIR.
3451
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North 2.0-199 X-1
3452
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

2.0-200 Final Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North X-2
3453
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North 2.0-201 X-2 Cont.
3454
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

2.0-202 Final Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North X-3
3455
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North 2.0-203 X-4
3456
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

2.0-204 Final Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North 3457
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North 2.0-205 Response to Letter X: Kristi and Christian Diener Residents of Clovis Response X-1: The commentor provides a brief paragraph identifying their opposition to the project.

They indicate that “the most obvious is the fact that an irregular L-shaped development with 800 homes (605 houses and 195 apartments) does not fit this area of rural residential.

It makes no sense to inject medium-high density housing into an area dominated by twoacre+ lots. Doing so destroys our Clovis way of life, the very motto Clovis promotes. The people who live in these areas enjoy the darkness of starry nights, walks on country roads, the quiet of the outdoors without traffic noise, and a peaceful environment away from the congestion of urban neighborhoods. They have spent their life savings to move out and away from populated areas. The most sensible way to develop this region would be to build additional two-acre properties consistent with the majority of existing properties in the area. Clovis needs to remember and restore its roots, and protect more of its country settings. Another option would be continuing to farm this plot as existing agricultural infrastructure is already in place. Clovis should not continue transitioning away from agriculture and rural properties, two facets that make Clovis a great place to live.” • The application that is evaluated in the Draft EIR includes a General Plan Land Use Amendment to adjust the land uses from Rural Residential (RR) to Medium-High Density (MH). This also includes a pre-zoning request for R-1-PRD zoning designations over the Development Area. This proposal would include a Tentative Tract Map entitlement for 605 residential lots. It should be noted that there is not a proposal to develop 195 apartments, rather, the Draft EIR includes an Alternative (Increased Density Mixed Use Alternative) that would include an additional 195 apartment units that Alternative only. The Increased Density Mixed Use Alternative is described in Section 2.0 Project Description on page 2.0- 8, and is evaluated in more detail in Section 5.0 Alternatives, but it should be noted that that the Increased Density Mixed Use Alternative is not the application requested by the Applicant. Regardless, the commenter’s opposition to an increase in housing density in the Development Area is noted and will be provided to the City for consideration.

Response X-2: The commentor states the following: “This 800 home development, with two-cars plus per residence, will at minimum generate in excess of 1,600 new vehicles. In addition, out of area traffic visiting these homes, such as friends and family, repairmen, pool techs, gardeners, babysitters, housekeepers, internet and cable companies, etc. will generate traffic beyond these figures. The Wilson development proposes four exits from the development, with approximately 25% for each, or 400+ vehicles using each exit route.

The planned northern exit is extremely concerning for many reasons.

Stanford is a narrow county road and has six curves before it meets Ticonderoga. It has no streetlights, no sidewalks, and no bike lanes. In fact, all of the roads in the Quail Run Neighborhood are similar. Residents frequently ride bicycles, jog, walk dogs, and drive golf 3458
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

2.0-206 Final Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North carts. Dumping 25% of the proposed development traffic, or a minimum of 400 vehicles, onto Stanford and other streets in this area, is a recipe for disaster. These country roads were not designed for city thoroughfare.

Additionally, since Shepherd has been closed, the only neighborhood exit from Quail Run is by way of Ticonderoga to Fowler. Because of the Stop sign at Behymer and Fowler, obstructing traffic is perfectly timed to make an exit onto Fowler difficult without "gunning it" to cut in. It is unthinkable and unimaginable what this exit would look like with the addition of 400+ vehicles lined up throughout the day and night, especially before and after school. Because cars emit the most CO2 while idling, the line of traffic attempting to exit onto Fowler will most certainly create an unavoidable negative environmental impact.”
• The traffic related comment is addressed under Master Response 6 through 13.

The project is also estimated to add only nominal trips to the local roads including Stanford, Ticonderoga, or to Fowler Avenue north of Shepherd Avenue. This is because, due to the local circulation network and location of activity centers in relation to the project, majority of the project traffic is estimated to travel south using Shepherd Avenue on to Clovis Avenue, Sunnyside Avenue, and Fowler Avenue, as shown in the TIA. As such, the project traffic will have nominal effects on the local roads in the neighborhood, north of Shepherd Avenue New traffic will be generated by the future residents of the 605 single-family residences. The DEIR identifies the traffic that would be generated by the proposed Project, including trips and vehicle miles traveled. The proposed Project does not propose any land use atypical to the area, or any land use that is estimated to change the neighborhood traffic pattern. The trip distribution pattern from the proposed Project is expected to be similar to the neighborhood trip patterns. Implementation of recommended improvements as included in the TIA would help alleviate traffic congestion and safety related issues within the project vicinity, as well as existing and future residential communities in the area.

The traffic improvements recommended as part of the TIA accounts for cumulative traffic impact from all future projects, as well as the proposed Project.

Additionally, the traffic analysis takes into consideration the effects of school traffic under existing and future long-range conditions. The improvements 3459
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North 2.0-207 proposed in the TIA would help address the traffic congestion issues from all future developments, as well as school related traffic within the project vicinity.

This includes both vehicular and non-motorized traffic issues as described in the TIA.
• The comment regarding CO2 is addressed in Section 3.7 Greenhouse Gases, Climate Change and Energy. Specifically, the emissions associated with mobile sources (traffic) were modeled and quantified. Table 3.7-2 on page 3.7-24 shows that the total emissions from Mobile Sources is 3,435.4 metric tons/year. This is associated with all mobile source emissions, not just limited to idling emissions.

The Draft EIR notes that the modeling does not account for the Governor Newsom’s Zero-Emission by 2035 Executive Order (N-79-20), which requires that all new cars and passenger trucks sold in California be zero-emission vehicles by 2035. The Draft EIR also notes that the modeling does not account for the incorporation of additional Renewables Portfolio Standard attainment beyond CalEEMod defaults, incorporation of AB 341, and incorporation of Title 24 requirements for the EV charging stations. This is anticipated to substantially reduce the operational emissions associated with passenger vehicles (i.e., mobile emissions) and other sources over time, including prior the 2035 final implementation year. The Draft EIR concluded that operational emissions results are likely an overestimate for mobile emissions.

The Draft EIR concludes that the Project, including the off-site improvements, would be consistent with the plans, policies, regulations, and GHG emissions reduction actions/strategies outlined in the 2022 Scoping Plan Update, the Fresno COG’s 2022 RTP/SCS, and the Clovis General Plan. Furthermore, Draft EIR concludes that because the Project is consistent with and does not conflict with these plans, policies, and regulations, the Project’s incremental increase in GHG emissions would not result in a significant impact on the environment.

Response X-3: The commentor states the following: “The proposed land use change and draft EIR, should not be approved. This section should only be developed consistent with existing properties (see below) which maintains the consistency of the region. A developer should not be entitled to inject his profitability vision into the lives of existing property owners who have invested their life savings into a rural and peaceful lifestyle. 800 new households stacked and packed into an odd shaped parcel surrounded by two-acre lots does not fit this region, and the additional traffic onto Stanford for a Fowler exit will have deadly and negative environmental consequences.”
• The traffic related comment is addressed under Master Response 6 through 13.

Comments regarding profit are economic in nature and outside the scope of an environmental document. These economic concerns will be provided to the City 3460
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

2.0 COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES

2.0-208 Final Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North for their consideration. The commenter’s overall opposition to an increase in housing density in the Development Area is noted and will be provided to the City for consideration. The project is estimated to add only nominal trips to Fowler Avenue north of Shepherd Avenue. This is because, due to the local circulation network and location of activity centers in relation to the project, majority of the project traffic is estimated to travel south using Shepherd Avenue on to Clovis Avenue, Sunnyside Avenue, and Fowler Avenue. Based on the TIA, only 15 percent of project traffic is anticipated to utilize Fowler Avenue.

Response X-4: The commentor states the following: “Further, last night on our walk we witnessed a family of endangered San Joaquin Valley Kit Fox crossing at Sunnyside and Shepherd. I do not see any mitigation measures in the DEIR to protect this endangered species or provide habitat. Rural residential properties tick this box.”
• San Joaquin kit fox (SJKF) is addressed in the Draft EIR on page 3.4-11, and 3.4-28.

The Project site is characterized as frequently disturbed from active agricultural activities, and as a result, the Project site does not contain high quality habitat for the SJKF. The CDFW has not documented any SJKF within nine miles of the Project site. The field surveys did not reveal any dens on the Project site so there is no active, or recent past, occupation by SJKF. The historical agricultural activities and denser orchard canopy make this site not ideal. It is noted that there are other species of canids, including grey fox and coyote, that are more likely to occur in the vicinity, and it is possible that one was mistaken for a SJKF on the commenter’s walk. There are no documented occurrences of a SJKF den in the vicinity, and it is not clear where such a transient SJKF in the vicinity would be traveling to and from. Overall, given the current condition of the Project site, and the absence of SJKF dens, development of the Project is anticipated to have a less than significant impact on SJKF. It is noted that the California Department of Fish and Wildlife has reviewed the Biological Chapter of the EIR and does not have issues with the analysis of SJKF.
3461
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

RESPONSES TO COMMENTS RECEIVED

AFTER FEIR PUBLIC CIRCULATION

3.0 Final Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North 3.0-1

3.1 INTRODUCTION
The City of Clovis received twenty-four (24) comment letters on the Draft EIR (DEIR) during the DEIR 45- day public review period. Acting as lead agency, the City of Clovis has prepared responses to the DEIR comments, which were included in a Final EIR that was made public prior to a hearing by the Planning Commission. After the release of the Final EIR there were sixteen (16) comments provided to the City of Clovis after public review closed for the DEIR. This Chapter is intended to provide a response to those comments. Responses to the comments received after public review do not involve any new significant impacts or “significant new information” that would require recirculation of the DEIR pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5.

3.2 LIST OF COMMENTERS
Table 3.0-1 lists the comments that were submitted to the City of Clovisreceived after public review closed for the DEIR. The assigned comment number, letter date, letter author, and affiliation, if presented in the comment letter or if representing a public agency, are also listed.

TABLE 3.0-1 LIST OF COMMENTERS ON RECEIVED AFTER DEIR PUBLIC CIRCULATION

RESPONSE
LETTER

INDIVIDUAL OR SIGNATORY AFFILIATION DATE
L-1
Jared Callister on behalf
of 20 members
Quail Run Community and members of the Quail Run
18 Association 11-13-23
L-2
Marcus and Amy
DiBuduo Resident of Clovis 9-16-23 *(11-14-23)
L-3 Rich Wathen Resident of Clovis 11-14-23
L-4 Leo & Todd Wilson Project Applicant 11-14-23
L-5 Nathan O. George Remy Moose Manley, LLP 11-16-23
L-6 Dean & Valerie Uhrig Resident of Clovis 11-16-23
L-7 Jacqueline Ruiz Resident of Clovis 11-16-23
L-8 Peter Menagh Resident of Clovis 11-16-23
L-9 Jared Callister Resident of Clovis 11-16-23
L-10 Laurence Kimura, P.E. Fresno Irrigation District 11-16-23 L-11 Lewis Smith Resident of Clovis 11-16-23
L-12 Patrick Quigley Resident of Clovis 11-16-23
L-13 Marcus DiBuduo Resident of Clovis 11-17-23
L-14 Lewis Smith Resident of Clovis 11-27-23
L-15 Chuck Kallas Resident of Clovis 11-27-23
L-16 Robert Shuman Resident of Clovis 11-30-23
* Note that letter L-2 from Marcus and Amy DiBuduo is dated 9/16/23, but this appears to be in error. The letter was emailed to the City on November 14, 2023, and it references City documents that were not made available until November 3, 2023. 3462
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

3.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS RECEIVED

AFTER FEIR PUBLIC CIRCULATION

3.0-2 Final Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North

3.3 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES

REQUIREMENTS FOR RESPONDING TO COMMENTS ON A DRAFT EIR
CEQA Guidelines Section 15088, subdivision (a) requires that lead agencies evaluate and respond to all comments on the DEIR that raise significant environmental issues. Section 15008, subdivision (b) provides that “[t]he written response shall describe the disposition of significant environmental issues raised (e.g., revisions to the proposed project to mitigate anticipated impacts or objections). In particular, the major environmental issues raised when the Lead Agency’s position is contrary to recommendations and objections raised in the comments, said comments must be addressed in detail giving reasons why specific comments and suggestions were not accepted. There must be a good faith, reasoned analysis in response.

Conclusory statements unsupported by factual information will not suffice. The level of detail contained in the response, however, may correspond to the level of detail provided in the comment (i.e., responses to general comments may be general). A general response may be appropriate when a comment does not contain or specifically refer to readily available information or does not explain the relevance of evidence submitted with the comment.” Section 15204 adds that “[w]hen responding to comments, lead agencies need only respond to significant environmental issues and do not need to provide all information requested by reviewers, as long as a good faith effort at full disclosure is made in the EIR.” In addressing how commenters on DEIRs should focus their comments, CEQA Guidelines Section 15204 recommends that commenters provide detailed comments that focus on the sufficiency of the DEIR in identifying and analyzing the possible environmental impacts of the project and ways to avoid or mitigate the significant effects of the project, and that commenters provide evidence supporting their comments.

Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064, subdivision (f)(5), an effect shall not be considered significant in the absence of substantial evidence.

It is noted that the CEQA Guidelines do not specifically address the need to respond to comments that are received after the public review period for the Draft EIR. However, City of Clovis staff intends to incorporate these comments, and the following responses to these comments, into the Revised Final EIR that is presented to the City Council for their certification.

RESPONSES TO COMMENT LETTERS
The comments on the DEIR are reproduced on the following pages, along with the City’s responses to those comments. To assist in referencing comments and responses, the following coding system is used:

Each letter is numbered and each comment within each letter is numbered (i.e., comment L-1-1, comment L-1-2, etc.). The “L” denotes that the comment was a comment provided after the 45- day public review period.

MASTER RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
It is noted that master responses were presented in Chapter 2.0 of the Final EIR and were intended to address comments related to topics that are common to several comment letters provided during the public review period, but the master responses are also relevant to address several comment letters 3463
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

RESPONSES TO COMMENTS RECEIVED

AFTER FEIR PUBLIC CIRCULATION

3.0 Final Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North 3.0-3 provided herein. The intent of a master response is to provide a comprehensive response to a topic in a coordinated, organized manner in one location that clarifies and elaborates on the analysis in the DEIR.

The following master responses were included in their entirety in Chapter 2.0 of the Final EIR and are presented here as a list only. Please refer to Chapter 2.0 of this Revised Final EIR for the complete Master Responses:
• Master Response 1: Water Quality
• Master Response 2: Storm Drainage/Flooding
• Master Response 3: Groundwater/Surface Water Supply
• Master Response 4: Infiltration/Natural Recharge
• Master Response 5: Groundwater Extraction
• Master Response 6: Access
• Master Response 7: Traffic generation
• Master Response 8: Traffic volume
• Master Response 9: Pedestrian and Cyclist Traffic
• Master Response 10: Traffic calming/Improvements
• Master Response 11: Safety for children playing
• Master Response 12: Fire gate
• Master Response 13: Traffic on Stanford, Perrin, Ticonderoga, and Fowler • Master Response 14: Annexation, SOI Expansion, and the Provision of City Services • Master Response 15: Neighborhood Meeting
• Master Response 16: Parks/Greenspace
• Master Response 17: Noise
• Master Response 18: Aesthetics/Lights
• Master Response 19: Air Quality, GHG, Energy
3464
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

3.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS RECEIVED

AFTER FEIR PUBLIC CIRCULATION

3.0-4 Final Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North L-1-1
L-1-2
L-1-3
L -1-4
L -1-5
L -1-6
3465
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

RESPONSES TO COMMENTS RECEIVED

AFTER FEIR PUBLIC CIRCULATION

3.0 Final Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North 3.0-5 L -1-6 Cont
3466
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

3.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS RECEIVED

AFTER FEIR PUBLIC CIRCULATION

3.0-6 Final Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North L -1-6 Cont
3467
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

RESPONSES TO COMMENTS RECEIVED

AFTER FEIR PUBLIC CIRCULATION

3.0 Final Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North 3.0-7 L -1-6 Cont
3468
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

3.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS RECEIVED

AFTER FEIR PUBLIC CIRCULATION

3.0-8 Final Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North L -1-6 Cont
3469
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

RESPONSES TO COMMENTS RECEIVED

AFTER FEIR PUBLIC CIRCULATION

3.0 Final Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North 3.0-9 L -1-6 Cont
3470
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

3.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS RECEIVED

AFTER FEIR PUBLIC CIRCULATION

3.0-10 Final Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North L -6 Cont
3471
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

RESPONSES TO COMMENTS RECEIVED

AFTER FEIR PUBLIC CIRCULATION

3.0 Final Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North 3.0-11 Response to Letter L-1: 20 Members., Quail Run Community and members of the Quail Run 18 Association
Response L-1-1: The commenters provide a brief introduction to the letter, noting who they are, and that they would like to express their position and concern regarding the proposed Project.
• This comment is noted, and their concerns will be presented to the City for consideration. This comment does not require any further response.

Response L-1-2: The commenters state that they have concerns with the proposed density of the Project, and its compatibility with the existing character and fabric of the neighborhood. • Although CEQA does not require an assessment of the effect of a project on the general “character” or “fabric” of a community, CEQA does require a lead agency to assess whether a project would result in substantial adverse impacts on scenic vistas and resources or substantially degrade the visual character of a project site and its surroundings. The Draft EIR found those impacts would be less than significant.

The proposed density of the Project is described in Section 2.0 Project Description in the Draft EIR. Master Response 18 provided in the Final EIR addressed concerns regarding the change in visual character of the Project site. The existing visual character of the Project site is discussed on page 3.1-4 of the DEIR. Here the region and vicinity are described as follows: The City of Clovis is in California’s San Joaquin Valley, and like most communities in the region, features a flat landscape organized around an orthogonal system of roadways. Due to its rapid growth in recent years and its adjacency to the City of Fresno, Clovis has a largely suburban character. Most of the City’s land area is devoted to low density residential neighborhoods. However, because the community has grown from a small farming town and is still surrounded by agricultural land uses on three sides, it retains a rural atmosphere. The suburban/rural interface is most prominent on the City’s eastern, southeastern, and southern edges. In these locations, new housing subdivisions are sited between working farms and large residential estate lots of two to five acres. The SOI beyond the City’s Limits to the east, northeast, and north is dominated by agricultural uses and undeveloped open spaces. The Project site is in the north, and the immediately surrounding area is best characterized as a mix of agricultural, suburban residential, and large estate lots with existing residences.

The Project’s potential impact on the visual character of the areas surrounding the Project were evaluated in the DEIR on pages 3.1-10 through 3.1-13. Here the proposed Project is described as involving an expansion of the City’s Sphere of 3472
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

3.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS RECEIVED

AFTER FEIR PUBLIC CIRCULATION

3.0-12 Final Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North Influence (SOI) to add approximately 155 acres into the City of Clovis’ SOI, including the annexation/reorganization of the proposed 77-acre Development Area to develop 605 single-family detached units, open space totaling 5.54 acres, including 2.25 acres of trails, 2.39 acres of promenade/pedestrian circulation, and

0.90 acres of parks, and associated roadway improvements. The DEIR indicates that the non-Development Area includes the parcels being included in the Sphere of Influence (SOI) expansion that will not be entitled for subdivision or development and no new development or improvements are proposed as part of the proposed Project for the Non-development Area. As a result, the DEIR concludes that the existing visual character of the Non-development Area would not change as part of the proposed Project.

Although the Project would change the visual character of the Project site, this change would not result in significant aesthetic impacts to surrounding properties. The Project contemplates the 77-acre Development Area would be converted from its existing use as primarily agricultural land to a residential neighborhood.

The Project includes exterior landscaping and open space to ensure an aesthetically pleasing visual buffer between existing land uses and the Project.

The Project applicant has submitted a landscape plan for the project detailing the Shepherd Avenue and open space landscaping for the proposed developed prepared by a licensed landscape architect. That conceptual landscape plan includes visual components that will enhance the appearance of the neighborhood once developed like those constructed by adjacent residential projects along Shepherd Avenue. These improvements include landscaping improvements like new street trees and other neighborhood greenery along Shepherd and Sunnyside Street frontages of the Project. The proposed Project would also result in the construction of park and open space areas within the subdivision. While implementation of the proposed Project would change the existing visual character of the area, the development components of the subdivisions are in alignment with the City’s requirements for residential subdivisions in the region, and would not result in a potentially significant aesthetic impact.

The neighborhoods within the Development Area would include a network of streets to provide an efficient flow of traffic through the area. Other uses to support and compliment the proposed residential development include underground (non-visible) wet and dry utility infrastructure, roadways with 3473
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

RESPONSES TO COMMENTS RECEIVED

AFTER FEIR PUBLIC CIRCULATION

3.0 Final Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North 3.0-13 curb/gutters/sidewalks, bicycle/pedestrian facilities, street lighting, and street signage.

The Project site is also required to be consistent with the General Plan and the Clovis Zoning Ordinance, which includes design standards. The City of Clovis zoning ordinance and ministerial permits design, construction and maintenance standards will ensure quality and cohesive design of the Project site. These standards include specifications for building height, massing, and orientation, exterior lighting standards, and landscaping standards. Following the City’s design, construction, and maintenance requirements will produce a project that will be internally cohesive, while maintaining and aesthetic feel like that of the surrounding urban uses.

Compliance with the requirements within the General Plan, as well as the Municipal Code (specifically Title 7 Public Works, Title 8 Building Regulations, Title 9 Development Code, and Title 10 Parks and Recreation), for the design, construction, and maintenance of the project will be required. Title 9 Development Code Division 3 includes a series of Development and Operational Standards that are aimed at creating uniform performance standards which are designed to minimize and mitigate the potential impacts of development within the City and promote compatibility with surrounding areas and land uses. These standards cover topics such as exterior light and glare (Section 9.22.050), fences, walls, and hedges (Section 9.24.060), height measure and height limit exceptions (9.24.080), screening and buffering (Section 9.24.090), setback regulations and exceptions (Section 9.24.100), landscaping standards (Chapter 9.28), tree protection standards (Chapter 9.30), and signs (Chapter 9.34). Some of these standards and requirements from pre-existing regulations are implemented after Project entitlement when more detailed site planning, engineering, and architecture is performed. The final approval of these items is ministerial. Some examples of requirements that the Project will follow are:

The Municipal Code implements the policies of the Clovis General Plan by classifying and regulating the uses of land and structures within the City of Clovis.

The Municipal Code is adopted to protect and to promote the public health, safety, comfort, convenience, prosperity, and general welfare of residents and businesses in the City. These existing requirements provide standards for the orderly growth and development of the City to establish and maintain the community’s history and quality characteristics in appropriate locations. It requires high quality planning and design for development that enhances the visual character of the City, avoids conflicts between land uses, encourages the 3474
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

3.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS RECEIVED

AFTER FEIR PUBLIC CIRCULATION

3.0-14 Final Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North appropriate mix of uses, and preserves the scenic qualities of the City. It also creates a comprehensive and stable pattern of land uses upon which to plan sewerage, transportation, water supply, and other public facilities and utilities.

Therefore, although the Project would result in some changes to the visual character of the Project site, the impacts of these changes to both the surrounding neighborhoods and the public would be less than significant.

Response L-1-3: The commenters state that they have concerns with the water availability and sustainability.
• The Final EIR provides a thorough discussion of the topic identified in this comment. Specifically, water availability and sustainability are addressed in Master Response 3, 4, and 5.

Response L-1-4: The commenters state that they have concerns with noise levels, traffic congestion, and light pollution.
• The Final EIR provides a thorough discussion of the topics identified in this comment. Specifically, traffic congestion is addressed in Master Response 7, 8, 10, and 13. Noise is addressed in Master Response 17. Light is addressed in Master Response 18.

Response L-1-5: The commenters state that they are strongly opposed to the Project, and that their organization has deliberated on the possibility of annexation. They recognize some benefits of annexation, but indicate that they have not formally requested annexation due to numerous unresolved queries including: clarifications needed on the annexation process and associated fees, detailed terms of the annexation agreement, implications of increased property taxes, and other factors that might affect their way of life. The commenters reiterate their opposition to the Project, but acknowledge that if it were to be approved for annexation, then it may be prudent for them to also be annexed to avoid creation of an isolated county island.
• These comments are noted. It should be noted that most of this comment refers to economic and social impacts that are not cognizable under CEQA. For clarification, the Quail Run community would not qualify as an isolated island were it not to be annexed. Master Response 14 provides discussion on Annexations. Much of the clarifications and information that the commenter 3475
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

RESPONSES TO COMMENTS RECEIVED

AFTER FEIR PUBLIC CIRCULATION

3.0 Final Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North 3.0-15 identifies as unresolved queries are obtainable through coordination with LAFCo, which is the agency responsible for annexations. The City staff is also available to provide information and help with queries that the commenter has about annexation. Ultimately, it is the commenter’s decision on whether they would like to be annexed. The City’s adopted of an SOI expansion would provide the commenter with the option to be annexed if they decide that it is in their best interest.

Response L-1-6: This passage includes the commenters’ concluding remarks regarding their stance on the annexation. They indicate that there has been little time for a thorough and thoughtful analysis. The commenters indicate that they are available for constructive dialogue and look forward to working together for a solution that respects the interest of their community and the City’s broader objectives.
• These comments are noted. For clarification, the EIR is a result of extensive technical analysis by a team of consultants working closely with City staff since 2021 (over two years). During that time there was a significant amount of analysis, peer review, design changes, and supplemental analysis necessary to fully analyze the impacts, and reduce or avoid impacts associated with project development. The City staff is available five days a week in City Hall to assist with any questions or to receive and process any applications. The commenters have likewise met with representatives of the applicant on several occasions. 3476
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

3.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS RECEIVED

AFTER FEIR PUBLIC CIRCULATION

3.0-16 Final Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North L-2-1
L-2-2
3477
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

RESPONSES TO COMMENTS RECEIVED

AFTER FEIR PUBLIC CIRCULATION

3.0 Final Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North 3.0-17 L-2-2 Cont
L-2-3
3478
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

3.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS RECEIVED

AFTER FEIR PUBLIC CIRCULATION

3.0-18 Final Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North L-2-4
3479
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

RESPONSES TO COMMENTS RECEIVED

AFTER FEIR PUBLIC CIRCULATION

3.0 Final Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North 3.0-19 L-2-4
L-2-5
3480
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

3.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS RECEIVED

AFTER FEIR PUBLIC CIRCULATION

3.0-20 Final Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North L-2-5 Cont
L-2-6
L-2-7
3481
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

RESPONSES TO COMMENTS RECEIVED

AFTER FEIR PUBLIC CIRCULATION

3.0 Final Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North 3.0-21 Response to Letter L-2: Marcus and Amy DiBuduo, Residents of Clovis Response L-2-1: This comment is an introductory statement, indicating first that the commenter is a resident of Cole Ave, then stating that Dry Creek Preserve is an important and sensitive location that will be a future connection between North Clovis and historic downtown Clovis. The comment states that the “City should be respectful to the impact City growth has on this area – an area which will, in all likelihood, be one of the only areas within the reach of the city that maintains a rural, agriculture lifestyle that many (erroneously believe) reflects the “Clovis Way of Life”. However, as discussed herein, the City has not sufficiently analyzed water, traffic, and annexation impacts of the project on the Dry Creek Preserve.”
• These comments are noted. The Draft EIR has sufficiently analyzed water, traffic, and annexation of the Project site. The Draft EIR provided detailed analysis on each of these topics. The Final EIR provided supplemental discussion on each of these topics. Water is addressed in Master Responses 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5. Traffic is addressed in Master Responses 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, and 13. Annexation is addressed in Master Response 14. Each of these issues were sufficiently analyzed in the Draft EIR and the Final EIR.

Response L-2-2: This comment indicates that the commenter is opposed each of the items set to be voted on during the November 16, 2023 meeting. The commenter then provides a list of six resolutions. Following the list of resolutions, the commenter indicates that their opposition is based on their review of the 19 documents that are part of the Planning Commission Agenda for Item 8 on November 16, 2023.
• The commenters’ opposition is noted and will be provided to the City for their consideration. There is no specific comment on the EIR that warrants a specific response.

Response L-2-3: The commenter states the following regarding water:

A Kenneth D. Schmidt and Associates’ report from September 2023 entitled “Groundwater Conditions in the Vicinity of Proposed Tract 6205” addresses third party comments submitted during the review process, and importantly, disruption of recharge from rainfall.

The Schmidt Report states that there is south westerly flow of groundwater at the project site and that “[o]nly the north half of the project would appear to influence the groundwater in the rural residential area to the northwest.” The report however does not address the impact of the proposed development (including not only loss of storm water but loss of recharge from pecan tree irrigation) on the rural residential areas to the east or south of the proposed project.
3482
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

3.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS RECEIVED

AFTER FEIR PUBLIC CIRCULATION

3.0-22 Final Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North Harbour and Associates (2023) have estimated the project average storm water runoff to be about 40 acre- feet per year. The storm water from the proposed development is anticipated to be sent to a flood control basin about a mile north of the project site.

However, nothing in the Final EIR or the Schmidt Report address whether 40 acre-feet of annual recharge at a basin site a mile north of the proposed project site would contribute positively to groundwater levels in the rural residential areas surrounding the project site (including north, south, and east of the project site) sufficient to offset the loss of recharge from rainfall.

An Indoor Residential Water Use Study, authored by the California Department of Water Resources, reports that the current statewide median indoor residential water use is 48 gallons per capita per day (or about 17,500 gallons per capita per year). 40 acre-feet of water is equivalent to about 13,000,000 gallons of water – enough for about 750 individuals per year. This is a significant amount of water.

It is estimated that there are 500 rural residential properties within a mile of the proposed development. Nearly half of these residences are in the Dry Creek Preserve, the unincorporated area to the south of the proposed project. Half of the Dry Creek Preserve is southwest of the proposed project – the same direction with the Schmidt Report stated the groundwater flows.

Because the impact to groundwater irrigation and the proposed mediation has not adequately addressed the Dry Creek Preserve, the Final EIR is deficient and should not be accepted. For the same reasons, the project should not be approved. • The Draft EIR, Final EIR, and the Water Supply Assessment adequately address the impact of the proposed development on the rural residential areas to the east and south of the Project site. Groundwater and water supply is addressed in DEIR Section 3.9 Hydrology and Water Quality and in Section 3.14 Utilities. The DEIR references the City of Clovis Urban Water Management Plan 2020 Update (Provost & Pritchard, 2021B), City of Clovis Water Shortage Contingency Plan 2020 Update (Provost & Pritchard, 2021A); the City of Clovis Water Master Plan Update Phase III (Provost & Pritchard, 2017), and the California’s Groundwater:

Bulletin 118 - San Joaquin Valley Groundwater Basin/Kings Subbasin (DWR 2006) as a source of information to support the analysis of water supply.

The Project contemplates the development of the Project site with impervious surfaces would not substantially reduce rainwater infiltration and groundwater recharge when compared to existing conditions. First, the open space areas of the development totaling approximately 5.54 acres will remain largely pervious and allow direct recharge onsite. Additionally, the collection of rainwater for 3483
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

RESPONSES TO COMMENTS RECEIVED

AFTER FEIR PUBLIC CIRCULATION

3.0 Final Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North 3.0-23 those areas of the Project site with impervious surfaces will be routed into the proposed Project’s storm drainage system, which is collected and would primarily flow to nearby flood control basins managed by the Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District (FMFCD). The FMFCD facilities are largely earthen bottom, which allows for recharge of stormwater into the local aquifer. FMFCD estimates that its facilities recharge more than 45,000 acre-feet each year.

The commenters also expressed concerns with the study prepared by Kenneth D.

Schmidt and Associates. That study provides a supplemental analysis of the groundwater conditions in the vicinity of the Project Site. The conclusion of the report is that the proposed Project would use water from the City of Clovis distribution system as opposed to on-site wells, and that there would be an overall reduction in groundwater pumpage of about 400 acre-feet per year compared to the pecan orchard land use. The report also includes a water balance that considers an estimated 40 acre-feet per year for storm drainage draining offsite. Although this storm drainage would be moved offsite, it would continue to be recharged in the Kings Groundwater Subbasin. In any event, the amount of stormwater moved offsite is only approximately ten percent (10%) of the water saved from the reduction in groundwater pumpage.

Therefore, even with storm drainage to offsite locations, there would be a beneficial impact to the local groundwater supplies from the reduction in pumping for irrigation. As a result, the proposed Project would not result in negative effects to the surrounding properties due to any loss of onsite recharge.

Response L-2-4: The commenter states the following:
“As the City is well aware, traffic on Sunnyside Ave. within the Dry Creek Preserve (“Rural Sunnyside Ave.”) is and will continue to become a significant issue as the City expands north of Shepherd. Rural Sunnyside Ave. is a two lane, double striped “no-passing” road that spans about one mile and is only about 24 feet wide. Within this one-mile stretch there are approximately 35 fronting residences and approximately 70 points of entry/exit onto Rural Sunnyside Ave. (including paved and unpaved driveways and access roads, transitions to arterial and adjacent streets).

Rural Sunnyside Ave. is a rural road in a rural environment. There are no streetlights.

Several areas have mature trees or bushes which interfere with unobstructed line of sight.

There is significant wildlife activity in the area which cross the road (Rural Sunnyside Ave. bisects the Dry Creek Preserve between the Dry Creek Canal and open space within the Dry Creek Preserve). Because there are no bike lanes or sidewalks cyclists and pedestrians share the roadway with the vehicles. Agricultural vehicles (including tractors, harvesting 3484
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

3.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS RECEIVED

AFTER FEIR PUBLIC CIRCULATION

3.0-24 Final Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North equipment, trailers, equine carriers, and the like) frequently utilize this road alongside “typical” roadway vehicles which may be passing through (including commuters, transport vehicles, construction vehicles, school busses, and waste disposal vehicles). All these factors and more require heightened awareness while driving this stretch… especially at night.

Waste collection vehicles, when collecting from the properties adjacent to Rural Sunnyside Ave., cannot pull off the roadway and instead stop in the lane (noting that stand alone and roll-off-type waste containers are placed just outside of the paved roadway to facilitate pickup). During their pickup from each residence along Rural Sunnyside Ave. the waste collection vehicles impede the flow of traffic while the waste containers are positioned, emptied, and re-positioned. Each stop, much less the cumulative impact of sequential stops along Rural Sunnyside Ave., causes a significant backup. This is especially true since the entire stretch of Rural Sunnyside Ave. is “no passing” – meaning all traffic is queued behind the waste collection vehicle while it completes the street pickup.

Similarly, school busses must stop in the roadway on Rural Sunnyside Ave. and impede the flow of traffic. Bus drivers may occasionally need to exit the bus to escort children across the roadway. In some cases, children are picked up at the bus stop by their parents who must also stop along the roadway. The alternative for those that are not picked up by their parents, is to undertake a dangerous walk along Rural Sunnyside Ave. It is especially dangerous due to the fact that there are no sidewalks, and in many places no dirt or gravel path, adjacent to Rural Sunnyside Ave.’s roadway.

There are numerous other examples of common conditions on Rural Sunnyside Ave. that make it uniquely more dangerous and deserving of attention. Long equine carries may need to reverse down portions of Rural Sunnyside Ave. as they back into their property.

Oversized agricultural equipment may travel at a slow pace and significantly queue traffic that is unable to pass. During harvest time, agricultural vehicles, such as pecan shakers, sweepers, and harvesters, along with the harvesting crew, utilize Rural Sunnyside Ave. to move the slow oversized equipment from one orchard to another. Cyclists - that can only travel in roadway – either cause queued traffic behind them, or create a great risk of frustrated vehicles illegally overtaking them.

As shown above, Rural Sunnyside Ave. has unique traffic related concerns. This is unfortunate since it, along with Fowler Ave., is an important --- if not the most important --- route between the proposed project and any location in Clovis or Fresno that is south of Nees Ave. When Rural Sunnyside Ave. crosses Nees Ave. it turns into the City’s Sunnyside Ave. At this magical intersection Sunnyside Ave. transforms from a 24-foot wide, two lane, unlit road without a sidewalk to a 64-foot wide, four lane, lit road with a sidewalk.

Unfortunately, however, neither the Draft EIR, the Final EIR, nor the traffic studies consider 3485
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

RESPONSES TO COMMENTS RECEIVED

AFTER FEIR PUBLIC CIRCULATION

3.0 Final Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North 3.0-25 Rural Sunnyside Ave. to be anything other than a regular City road, though each admit the proposed project would significantly impact it.

The Final EIR addresses comments that were received regarding the Draft EIR. Master Response 7 (Traffic generation), Master Response 8 (Traffic Volume), Master Response 9 (Pedestrian and Cyclist Traffic), and Master Response 10 (Traffic calming/Improvements) states that the improvements identified in the traffic study --- sidewalks, curb and gutter along Sunnyside Avenue along the project frontage --- would help alleviate traffic congestion and safety issues within the project vicinity.

If these statements (or any other statement) is false, the Final EIR is untrustworthy. If these statements is true, then the Final EIR either (i) treats Sunnyside Ave. between Sheperd Ave. and Nees Ave. as not in the “vicinity” of the proposed project or (ii) fails to analyze the impact of the proposed project other than any particular impact which may be mitigated by the suggested improvements (i.e., it only finds impact to those matters which may be offset by signalization of Sunnyside/Shepherd and Sunnyside/Nees intersections. In any event, the presence of this statement underlies flaws in the Final EIR.

The responses further double down on the bizarre assertion that sidewalks north of Shepherd Ave. somehow mitigate impact south of Shepherd Ave. One of the comments to the Draft EIR was a letter from Norman D Morrison, dated September 4, 2023 and entitled “Comments in Opposition to/regarding Shepherd North Draft EIR E202310000202” (“Morrison Letter”). The Morrison Letter indicated deficiencies in adequately analyzing traffic impacts or identify mitigation measures on Sunnyside Avenue between Shepherd and Nees within the Dry Creek Preserve. Mr. Morrison is a resident on Rural Sunnyside Ave.

Rather than analyzing Mr. Morrison’s comment along the situs of which it referred (i.e., Rural Sunnyside Ave.), Response R-4 again simply states “[t]he improvements proposed in the study would help address the traffic congestion issues…. within the project vicinity”, and again touts the benefits of the improvements along the project frontage without identifying how such improvements would at all mitigate the impact on Rural Sunnyside Ave.

Whether these statements are false or at best misleading, they render the Final EIR unfit for acceptance. For the same reasons, the project should not be approved. The devil and deficiencies here are in the details: much like addressed above with respect to water, the Final EIR appears to not significantly address the impacts on traffic in the Dry Creek Preserve, and importantly, Rural Sunnyside Ave.
• The Project’s potential traffic impacts were analyzed in the Draft EIR in accordance with the City’s Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines. The traffic analysis 3486
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

3.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS RECEIVED

AFTER FEIR PUBLIC CIRCULATION

3.0-26 Final Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North covers access, traffic generation, traffic volume, vehicle miles traveled, pedestrian and bicycles, traffic calming, and safety. Supplemental discussion was also provided in response to comments in the Final EIR. The supplemental discussion is provided in Master Response 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, and 13.

The traffic analysis was performed by a team of highly reputable traffic engineers licensed by the State of California, working in coordination with the City Engineer, Caltrans, Fresno Council of Governments, City of Fresno, and County of Fresno.

The traffic engineers first prepared a scoping document that was distributed to all agencies responsible for traffic and circulation systems in the region (i.e.

Caltrans, Fresno Council of Governments, City of Fresno, County of Fresno). The scoping and consultation process involved having these agencies review the scoping document and provide their recommendations on the appropriate geographic scope for the analysis and to ensure any facilities that had the potential to be adversely affected by the project were evaluated in the study. The traffic engineers incorporated any comments received by the above agencies regarding the scope of the analysis. After consultation with these transportation agencies, the traffic engineers prepared a traffic analysis, which was distributed to these agencies for their review and comment. The traffic analysis followed the methodology outlined in the City’s Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines.

The Project’s potential impacts to Sunnyside Avenue were analyzed in the Transportation Impact Analysis Report (TIA) and the draft EIR. The TIA included an in-depth intersection and roadway segment analysis for Sunnyside Avenue, including the intersections of Sunnyside Avenue/Shepherd Avenue, Sunnyside Avenue/Teague Avenue, Sunnyside Avenue/Nees Avenue, and the roadway segments between these intersections.

The TIA proposed two signals at the intersections of Sunnyside Avenue/Shepherd Avenue and Sunnyside Avenue/Nees Avenue to eliminate the operational deficiency at these locations. Installing these signals at these locations would also help alleviate speeding issues along this corridor. It would also help drivers to be attentive to slow moving vehicles, vehicles backing out from private driveways, and to pedestrians or cyclists ahead while waiting at the signals. Further, as explained in the TIA, both the roadway segments and the intersection of Sunnyside Avenue/Teague Avenue is forecast to operate at or better than LOS D, consistent with City threshold, and County’s threshold within the City of Fresno and Clovis Sphere of Influence area.
3487
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

RESPONSES TO COMMENTS RECEIVED

AFTER FEIR PUBLIC CIRCULATION

3.0 Final Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North 3.0-27 Sunnyside Avenue is designated as a collector within the City’s General Plan.

Additionally, Class II Bike lanes are proposed along Sunnyside Avenue. Once implemented, these bike lanes would help alleviate safety concerns about bikers along this corridor. Those lanes would also function as a refuge area/curbside for pedestrians, trash pick-up collection trucks, or for vehicles backing up.

Additionally, as explained in the TIA and the Draft EIR, while some of the project trips are estimated to utilize Sunnyside Avenue, the majority of the project trips are estimated to utilize Clovis Avenue, since Clovis Avenue provides a direct connection to the SR-168/Herndon Avenue interchange and has more vehicular capacity compared to Sunnyside Avenue.

The commenters also raise concerns that the Project would exacerbate existing unsafe conditions on Sunnyside Avenue. As shown in the TIA and the draft EIR, all intersections and roadway segments along Sunnyside Avenue currently operates at an acceptable Level of Service (LOS). This acceptable LOS under existing conditions suggests that there is not an unsafe condition on Sunnyside Avenue.

Given the location of Sunnyside Avenue in relation to the proposed Northwest Urban Center growth area (including Heritage Grove Specific Plan area, TM6200, and other projects), traffic along Sunnyside Avenue is projected to increase with time, as shown in the TIA in near-term, and long-term cumulative analysis scenarios. However, as further shown in the TIA, with implementation of the recommended improvements in the TIA, Sunnyside Avenue would operate at an acceptable LOS. This acceptable LOS under near-term, and long-term cumulative conditions suggests that there is not an unsafe condition on Sunnyside Avenue now or in the future. Furthermore, there is no geometric design component of this roadway that is considered unsafe. It is notable that improvements (signals, sidewalks, and bike lanes) are roadway design elements that help improve safety, and specifically some of the safety concerns raised by the commentator (vehicle backing up, speeding, bike and pedestrian concerns) are addressed with the addition of roadway improvements. Adding signals improves safety by controlling traffic, bike, and pedestrian movements through signalized intersections. The control of the vehicle speed and movements reduces the potential for conflicts, and improves overall safety at intersections. Additionally, sidewalks improve safety by separating pedestrians from vehicular traffic. Bike lanes also improve safety by designating a lane for bike travel that is separated from vehicular travel.

The commenters also state that the DEIR and FEIR treat Sunnyside Ave. between Shepherd Ave. and Nees Ave. as not in the “vicinity” of the proposed project. 3488
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

3.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS RECEIVED

AFTER FEIR PUBLIC CIRCULATION

3.0-28 Final Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North However, the Project’s potential impacts to Sunnyside Avenue were specifically addressed in the TIA and the DEIR, as explained above.

The commenters also express concern that the responses to comments in the FEIR were not responsive to the correspondence submitted by Norman Morrison.

The Morrison Letter is addressed in Section 2.0 of this Final EIR. The response notes that the TIA includes contribution of traffic from all future developments that would add traffic to the TIA study area. As such, the traffic improvements recommended as part of this study accounts for cumulative traffic impact from all future projects, as well as the proposed project. Additionally, the traffic analysis takes into consideration the effects of school traffic under existing and future long-range conditions. The improvements proposed in the study would help address the traffic congestion issues from all future developments, as well as school related traffic within the project vicinity. This includes both vehicular and non-motorized traffic issues as described in the TIA.

The response also notes that, currently, there is no signalized control along Sunnyside Avenue between Behymer Avenue and Alluvial Avenue. Among the major intersections along this corridor, the intersection of Sunnyside Avenue/Shepherd Avenue is an all-way stop-controlled intersection, Sunnyside Avenue/Teague Avenue is a two-way stop-controlled intersection, and Sunnyside Avenue/Nees Avenue is an all-way stop-controlled intersection.

As included in the TIA, signals have been proposed at the intersection of Sunnyside Avenue/Shepherd Avenue, and Sunnyside Avenue/Nees Avenue, along with other improvements at these locations. As such, with implementation of these signals along this corridor, the corridor is anticipated to experience improved traffic flow, and alleviate current safety concerns. This is after account ting for the traffic from the project and other adjacent projects in the vicinity.

Both signals are in the City’s Development Impact Fee program and the City will be implementing these improvements.

The project will also be implementing several project design features that will help eliminate gaps in the pedestrian circulation network around the project site.

RESPONSES TO COMMENTS RECEIVED

AFTER FEIR PUBLIC CIRCULATION

3.0 Final Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North 3.0-29 pedestrians accessing the Dry Creek trailhead safely with designated crosswalks at this location.

The above-mentioned project design features are beneficial improvements along the project frontage that specifically improve safety. The commenter concludes that the Final EIR appears to not significantly address the impacts on traffic in the Dry Creek Preserve, and specifically, Rural Sunnyside Avenue. The widening of Shepherd Avenue from a 2-lane undivided rural roadway to a 4-lane divided roadway and a longer curve will increase the capacity of the section between Sunnyside Avenue and Fowler Avenue. These improvements tend to change some of the localized traffic patterns over time. There are no geometric safety concerns under current or future conditions along this roadway. In any event, the above responses address traffic-related concerns regarding Sunnyside Avenue.

Response L-2-5: The commenter states the following:
“The project proposes an access point along Sheperd Ave. about 1000’ east of the intersection of Sunnyside/Shepherd. Unlike the ill-advised access point to Heritage Grove permitted between the intersections of Sunnyside/Shepherd and Clovis/Shepherd, this stretch of Shepherd Ave. between the proposed access point and the intersection of 3490
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

3.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS RECEIVED

AFTER FEIR PUBLIC CIRCULATION

3.0-30 Final Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North Fowler/Shepherd is one lane in each direction. Rather than requiring the applicant to dedicate enough property to substantially convert Shepherd Ave. between Sunnyside Ave. and Fowler Ave. into four travel lanes (which would align with Shepherd Ave. east and west of the project), the City apparently is committed to this stretch in a major arterial in North Clovis being a permanent pinch point. Because it will apparently remain a single lane from Fowler Ave. to Sunnyside Ave., any impediment to the flow of traffic appurtenant to the project along Shepherd Av. should be avoided. The City should not amend the circulation element of the General Plan to allow the Access Point as doing so would further congest an already congested stretch of Shepherd Ave. • The commenters raise the concern that the Project contemplates that Shepherd Avenue would permanently be configured as having one lane each way in the location of the Project frontage. The Project, however, contemplates the installation of a second westbound lane, along with sidewalks, curb and gutter, along the Shepherd Avenue frontage. Additionally, the project will be dedicating adequate space for construction of the second eastbound lane, bike lanes, and sidewalk per the existing alignment of Sunnyside Avenue between east and west end of the project, to be constructed by the City as part of the City’s DIF programs.

Therefore, this segment will not remain one lane along the Project frontage, but rather a two-lane facility. Due to the expansion to a two-lane facility, the Project is not anticipated to create any potential for bottleneck conditions for traffic along Shepherd Avenue.

Additionally, the driveway along Shepherd Avenue will not be a full access driveway, rather, this will be a right-in right-out left-in (RIROLI) driveway only. A raised median and a dedicated left turn storage pocket will be installed at this intersection for safe maneuver of traffic using a two-stage access process. As such, none of the project traffic movements at this location would negatively affect the through traffic along Shepherd Avenue.
• Also, as included in the TIA, a sight distance analysis was conducted for all driveways to determine adequacy of sight for safe maneuver at the driveways using California Highway Design Manual (HDM) recommended methodology. As such, all the proposed project driveways achieve the adequate sight distances and have clear sight triangles for the drivers along the project frontage.

Response L-2-6: The commenter states the following:
“While the Draft EIR and Final EIR briefly address potential annexation issues to properties north of Shepherd Ave., it doesn’t address a bigger concern for the City – annexation of properties in the Dry Creek Preserve south of Shepherd Ave. 3491
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

RESPONSES TO COMMENTS RECEIVED

AFTER FEIR PUBLIC CIRCULATION

3.0 Final Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North 3.0-31 Several people provided comments about annexation. Although it doesn’t appear that any of these comments were directed to possible annexation of properties within the Dry Creek Preserve, it bears reminding that unconsented annexation of any property within the Dry Creek Preserve will significantly impact the proposed project and the City and its resources.

The City should be reminded that most residents of the Dry Creek Preserve do and will object to annexation. Many of those which may choose to not formally object to annexation have executed annexation agreements which relieve them of many obligations and perceived benefits of being in the City.

Should the proposed project trigger annexation proceedings on property in the Dry Creek Preserve, the City and applicant should expect significant delays to final project approval.

The Final EIR should not be accepted since it fails to address the potential of the project to impact the potential for annexation in the “vicinity” anywhere south of the proposed project boundaries. For the same reasons, the project should not be approved. Should the City, however, accept the Final EIR, it should condition approval of the project on no property south of Shepherd Ave. being the subject of annexation proceedings.” • The commenter’s concerns and objections to the annexation of property in the Dry Creek Preserve are noted and will be provided to the City for consideration.

Annexation, SOI Expansion, and the Provision of City Services are addressed under Master Response 14. It is noted that the only annexation provided in the Development Area. The other areas that are described as Non-Development Areas are not proposed for annexation. Instead, these areas would be included in the SOI expansion, which would make them eligible for annexation should the property owners desire to annex into the City.

Response L-2-7: The commenter provides the following conclusion:
“The Final EIR is woefully deficient with respect to analyzing the impact of the proposed project and proposing mitigation measures therefor in the “vicinity” of the project: the impact to groundwater south of Shepherd; the impact to all traffic concerns on Sunnyside Ave. between Shepherd Ave. and Nees Ave.; and the potential for annexation of any property in the Dry Creek Preserve. As such, the Final EIR should not be accepted, and the project should not be approved. None of the resolutions should be passed.” • The City staff and their consultant team have diligently worked to analyze the impacts of the Project, and develop mitigation measures where impacts were identified. The EIR process included extensive public review in accordance with State law. The analysis included an analysis of impacts to groundwater, impacts to traffic on vicinity roadways, and potential for annexation. The commenters’ 3492
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

3.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS RECEIVED

AFTER FEIR PUBLIC CIRCULATION

3.0-32 Final Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North concerns and objections to the Project, the Final EIR, and Resolutions are noted and will be provided to the City for consideration.
3493
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

RESPONSES TO COMMENTS RECEIVED

AFTER FEIR PUBLIC CIRCULATION

3.0 Final Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North 3.0-33 L-3-1
3494
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

3.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS RECEIVED

AFTER FEIR PUBLIC CIRCULATION

3.0-34 Final Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North L-3-2
3495
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

RESPONSES TO COMMENTS RECEIVED

AFTER FEIR PUBLIC CIRCULATION

3.0 Final Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North 3.0-35 Response to Letter L-3: Rich Wathen, Resident of Clovis Response L-3-1: This comment is a question sent via email to City of Clovis Senior Planner George Gonzalez. The question is as follows: “Could you also tell me approximately when the northwest village plan was approved/adopted. Thank you.” • City of Clovis Senior Planner George Gonzalez responded via email to the commenter on the same day that question was originally asked. The response is as follows: “The Heritage Grove Design Guidelines were adopted by the City Council in 2016.” The commenter’s question does not raise any concerns with the EIR, and no further response is warranted.

Response L-3-2: This comment is a question sent via email to City of Clovis Senior Planner George Gonzalez. The question is as follows: “in regards to the Wilson development planning commission meeting on Thursday, our neighbors had a couple of questions…What is the approximate total number of potential homes that were designated/approved in the Northwest Village plan area?...What is the approximate density/lot sizes of the these two projects in the Dry Creek Preserve area. Granville Whispering Creek and the new Woodside development south of the Meat Market shopping center on Fowler ave.” • City of Clovis Senior Planner George Gonzalez responded via email to the commenter on the same day that question was originally asked. The response is as follows: “Woodside's TM6154 located on the east side of Fowler Avenue, north of Teague Avenue has a density of 2.20 units per acre. Woodside's TM6284 located on the south side of Teague Avenue, between Sunnyside and Fowler Avenues has a density of 2.3 units per acre. Granville Home's TM5550 located on the north side of Teague Avenue, between Fowler and Armstrong Avenues has a density of approximately 1 dwelling unit per acre…Per the Heritage Grove Design Guidelines, the Heritage Grove Growth Area will accommodate a population of approximately 30,000 citizens. This would be equivalent to approximately (estimated) 10,345 homes.” The commenter’s question does not raise any concerns with the EIR, and no further response is warranted. 3496
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

3.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS RECEIVED

AFTER FEIR PUBLIC CIRCULATION

3.0-36 Final Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North L-4-1
3497
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

RESPONSES TO COMMENTS RECEIVED

AFTER FEIR PUBLIC CIRCULATION

3.0 Final Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North 3.0-37 L-4-1 Cont
3498
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

3.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS RECEIVED

AFTER FEIR PUBLIC CIRCULATION

3.0-38 Final Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North L-4-1 Cont
3499
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

RESPONSES TO COMMENTS RECEIVED

AFTER FEIR PUBLIC CIRCULATION

3.0 Final Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North 3.0-39 Response to Letter L-4: Leo & Todd Wilson, Project Applicant Response L-4-1: This comment is from the Project Applicant and provides a discussion of what they intend to achieve with project design and improvements that are proposed. The comment also discusses the Project Applicant’s timeline for the Project dating back to 2005 when acquisition of the property occurred up to August 2023 where the Applicant held a meeting with neighbors.
• This comment is noted. The comment does not include comments on the EIR. This comment will be provided to the City for consideration. No further response is necessary.
3500
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

3.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS RECEIVED

AFTER FEIR PUBLIC CIRCULATION

3.0-40 Final Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North L-5-1
L-5-2
3501
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

RESPONSES TO COMMENTS RECEIVED

AFTER FEIR PUBLIC CIRCULATION

3.0 Final Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North 3.0-41 L-5-2 Cont
L-5-3
L-5-4
3502
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

3.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS RECEIVED

AFTER FEIR PUBLIC CIRCULATION

3.0-42 Final Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North L-5-5
L-5-4 Cont
3503
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

RESPONSES TO COMMENTS RECEIVED

AFTER FEIR PUBLIC CIRCULATION

3.0 Final Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North 3.0-43 L-5-6
L-5-5 Cont
3504
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

3.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS RECEIVED

AFTER FEIR PUBLIC CIRCULATION

3.0-44 Final Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North L-5-6 Cont
3505
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

RESPONSES TO COMMENTS RECEIVED

AFTER FEIR PUBLIC CIRCULATION

3.0 Final Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North 3.0-45 L-5-7a
L-5-6 Cont
L-5-7b
3506
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

3.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS RECEIVED

AFTER FEIR PUBLIC CIRCULATION

3.0-46 Final Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North L-5-7b Cont
L-5-7d
L-5-7c
3507
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

RESPONSES TO COMMENTS RECEIVED

AFTER FEIR PUBLIC CIRCULATION

3.0 Final Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North 3.0-47 L-5-7d Cont
L-5-7e
3508
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

3.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS RECEIVED

AFTER FEIR PUBLIC CIRCULATION

3.0-48 Final Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North L-5-7f
L-5-8a
L-5-7e Cont
L-5-7g
L-5-8b
3509
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

RESPONSES TO COMMENTS RECEIVED

AFTER FEIR PUBLIC CIRCULATION

3.0 Final Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North 3.0-49 L-5-8b Cont
L-5-9a
L-5-8c
L-5-8d
L-5-9b
L-5-9c
3510
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

3.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS RECEIVED

AFTER FEIR PUBLIC CIRCULATION

3.0-50 Final Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North L-5-9c Cont
L-5-9d
3511
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

RESPONSES TO COMMENTS RECEIVED

AFTER FEIR PUBLIC CIRCULATION

3.0 Final Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North 3.0-51 L-5-9d Cont
L-5-10
3512
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

3.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS RECEIVED

AFTER FEIR PUBLIC CIRCULATION

3.0-52 Final Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North L-5-10 Cont
L-5-11a
L-5-11b
3513
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

RESPONSES TO COMMENTS RECEIVED

AFTER FEIR PUBLIC CIRCULATION

3.0 Final Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North 3.0-53 L-5-11b Cont
L-5-12a
L-5-12b
L-5-12c
L-5-12d
3514
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

3.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS RECEIVED

AFTER FEIR PUBLIC CIRCULATION

3.0-54 Final Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North L-5-12d Cont
L-5-13a
L-5-12e
3515
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

RESPONSES TO COMMENTS RECEIVED

AFTER FEIR PUBLIC CIRCULATION

3.0 Final Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North 3.0-55 L-5-13aCont
L-5-13b
L-5-13c
L-5-13d
3516
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

3.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS RECEIVED

AFTER FEIR PUBLIC CIRCULATION

3.0-56 Final Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North L-5-13e
L-5-14a
L-5-14b
L-5-14c
3517
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

RESPONSES TO COMMENTS RECEIVED

AFTER FEIR PUBLIC CIRCULATION

3.0 Final Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North 3.0-57 L-5-14c
L-5-14d
L-5-14e
3518
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

3.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS RECEIVED

AFTER FEIR PUBLIC CIRCULATION

3.0-58 Final Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North L-5-14f
L-5-15
L-5-16a
L-5-14g
3519
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

RESPONSES TO COMMENTS RECEIVED

AFTER FEIR PUBLIC CIRCULATION

3.0 Final Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North 3.0-59 L-5-16a Cont
L-5-17
L-5-16b Cont
3520
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

3.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS RECEIVED

AFTER FEIR PUBLIC CIRCULATION

3.0-60 Final Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North L-5-17 Cont
L-5-18
3521
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

RESPONSES TO COMMENTS RECEIVED

AFTER FEIR PUBLIC CIRCULATION

3.0 Final Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North 3.0-61 Response to Letter L-5: Nathan O. George, Remy Moose Manley, LLP Response L-5-1: This comment serves as an introductory statement, introducing the commenter, and indicating how the commenter represents.
• This comment is noted, and does not warrant further response.

Response L-5-2: This comment states “The EIR fails to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (Pub. Resources Code, § 21000 et seq.) (CEQA) because it is fundamentally flawed and fails as an informational document in multiple aspects, including the Project Description and the failure to adequately analyze the Project’s impacts to aesthetics, including light and glare, agricultural resources, air quality and associated human health effects, noise, energy, groundwater, transportation, public utilities, including water supply, and cumulative impacts. Additionally, the EIR is internally inconsistent between several environmental impact analysis chapters, as well as the technical appendices.” • The City has prepared the EIR in compliance with CEQA, and has made a significant effort to ensure that adequate information is synthesized and presented in the EIR, and made available to the public, responsible agencies, trustee agencies, and interested parties. The City has also made a substantial effort to answer questions, provide clarifications, and to correct or amplify information where necessary in the Final EIR, and in this document. The assertions made in this paragraph are general statements that are more fully discussed by the commenter in later paragraphs. A more detailed response to each topic is presented in association with those later paragraphs.

Response L-5-3: This comment states “Fundamentally, the EIR fails to analyze the magnitude of the Project’s alteration of the physical environment, including impacts of the massive change in the intensity of use on existing, low-density neighborhoods immediately adjacent to the Project. The EIR also improperly treats the Project, which requires the conversion of 77 acres of agricultural land in the unincorporated county into 605 residential units—which is textbook “greenfield” development—as if it were an infill project in an already urbanized area in the City. Contrary to the conclusory and unsupported statements in the EIR, however, the proposed Project is vastly different from the existing, surrounding land uses (which, as the EIR admits, includes agricultural land and low-density rural residential). The EIR must analyze all potentially significant impacts of the Project on the environment, including the non-development areas, resulting from the drastic changes in intensity of use proposed by the Project. For example and as explained more fully herein, the EIR’s Project Description acknowledges the existence and uniqueness of the Quail Run and Fowler neighborhoods (identified as Expansion Subarea North, and Expansion Subarea East, respectively), but the impact analysis chapters largely ignore these neighborhoods in discussing the environmental setting and baseline, resulting in deficient analyses that 3522
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

3.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS RECEIVED

AFTER FEIR PUBLIC CIRCULATION

3.0-62 Final Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North fail to adequately consider impacts to these components of the existing environment.” The commenter then suggests a remedy as follows: “To remedy the defects in the EIR, the City of Clovis (City) must undertake additional analyses of the Project’s environmental effects including, potentially, analysis and recommendation of mitigation measures for significant impacts, which will require adding significant new information to the EIR and trigger the need to recirculate the draft EIR for an additional round of public review and comments. Accordingly, the Planning Commission should direct City staff to revise and recirculate the EIR.”
• The commenter suggests the DEIR does not evaluate the impacts of the Project on adjacent residential communities, such as Quail Run Community. This assertion is inaccurate. Page 2.0-1 of the DEIR describes the Non-Development Area as including “parcels being included in the SOI expansion that will not be entitled for subdivision or development. This includes two separate areas, each described as an Expansion SubArea. The two Expansion SubAreas total 78 acres and are defined as Expansion SubArea North and Expansion SubArea East.” As such, the absence of new development in the Non-Development Area will result in no direct physical changes associated with development activities.

Development of the Development Area will, however, have potential indirect impacts on the Non-Development Area, which are described throughout the EIR under each relevant environmental topic.

An example of the DEIR considering surrounding uses is in the Aesthetics Section, where on page 3.1-4 it states “Light sources from the proposed Project can have an adverse impact on the surrounding areas, by introducing nuisance light into the area and decreasing the visibility of nighttime skies. Additionally, light sources can create light spillover impacts on surrounding land uses in the absence of a lighting plan that includes photometrics of the lighting.” The DEIR goes on to explain that any new lighting associated with implementation of the proposed Project would be pedestrian-scale lighting and the fixtures would be consistent with the style and technical specifications approved by the City, including compliance with the City’s light and glare regulations under Section 9.22.050 of the Clovis Development Code, which requires that light be shielded so that light does not spill onto adjacent properties. The City’s existing requirements require a lighting plan to be submitted to the City for review and approval for the improvement plans, as well as for the building plans. All proposed outdoor lighting is required to meet applicable City standards regulating outdoor lighting, including 9.22.050 Exterior light and glare of the City’s Development code, which is designed to minimize any impacts resulting from outdoor lighting on adjacent properties. Implementation of the existing City standards would reduce potential 3523
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

RESPONSES TO COMMENTS RECEIVED

AFTER FEIR PUBLIC CIRCULATION

3.0 Final Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North 3.0-63 impacts associated with nighttime lighting and light spillage onto adjacent properties to a less than significant level. Here, the DEIR identifies light spillover as a potential indirect impact of the lighting installed in the Development Area, but it identifies that existing regulations ensure that the lighting systems on the buildings and streets are designed in a way that eliminates the potential for spillover and nuisance lighting.

The DEIR also considers surrounding uses in the Aesthetics Section, where on page 3.1-11 it states “…the agricultural land provides visual relief from urban and suburban developments, and helps to define the character of a region.” The DEIR then notes “… the pecan orchard portion of the Project site is an island of agricultural land use surrounded by developed homes to the east, north, and south, and an entitled residential subdivision to the west.” Here, the DEIR discusses the visual characteristics of the Project site relative to the surrounding uses. The DEIR notes that “…the pecan orchard is a relic agricultural piece of property that has remained intact and operational despite the properties in the immediate surrounding aesthetically changing to suburban residential aesthetic.” Again, the DEIR describes the Project site relative to the surrounding uses.

The DEIR also considers other potential impacts on the non-adjacent area. For example, the DEIR considers surrounding uses in the Transportation and Circulation Section, which on page 3.13-1 analyzes the potential impacts of the proposed Project on the surrounding transportation system including roadways, bicycle/pedestrian facilities, rail, and transit facilities/services.” On page 3.13-2, the DEIR defines the Study Area and specifically states that it includes “Pedestrian, bicycle, and transit facilities within 0.5 mile from the project site boundary…All signalized intersections within 0.5 mile of the Project site boundary where the project would add 50 or more peak‐hour trips, and signalized intersections beyond 0.5 mile where the project would add 100 or more peak‐hour trips…All unsignalized intersections within a 0.5 mile of the project site boundary where the project would add more than 50 peak‐hour trips.” This of course includes facilities within the Quail Run neighborhood.

The DEIR also considers impacts on surrounding land uses. For instance, on page

3.11-4 the DEIR discusses the existing ambient noise levels in the project vicinity.

Then on page 3.11-15 through 3.11-19, the DEIR discusses the noise levels that would be projected with the Project along 23 roadway segments that traverse through surrounding land uses.

There are many other examples where the DEIR addresses the potential impacts on surrounding areas, including the Non-development Areas (e.g. Quail Run). The 3524
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

3.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS RECEIVED

AFTER FEIR PUBLIC CIRCULATION

3.0-64 Final Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North discussion of these potential impacts on the Non-Development Area and other surrounding areas are appropriately analyzed in the DEIR with support for the conclusions that are presented.

The commenter also suggests that the DEIR fails to accurately describe the magnitude of the Project. This is inaccurate. The EIR accurately describes the scope and scale of the Project in Section 2.0 Project Description, where it defines the Project as a conversion of 77 acres of agricultural land in the unincorporated County into 605 residential units, with the balance of the Project site being existing residential uses with no new development proposed. The changes that would result from the Project are analyzed throughout the DEIR under each respective environmental topic.

Additionally, the land that defines the Development Area portion of the Project site (the 77 acres to be developed with 605 residential units) is accurately described in the EIR as existing agricultural land (historically used as a pecan orchard), which the commenter states is “textbook greenfield development.” Because the project site is largely surrounded by urban, semi-urban, and suburban development, City staff does not believe it is accurate to characterize the Project as “textbook greenfield development.” In addition, the City’s General Plan contemplates development and the conversion of isolated agricultural lands in many places throughout the city to accommodate the need for new housing.

This is because agricultural land is the predominate land base that is available for development within the City’s Sphere of Influence. The City also has no policy against development on agricultural land; rather, the City uses a thorough and thoughtful long-range planning process to evaluate targeted areas for the City to grow, and they reserve areas under agricultural use for areas that are not ripe for development.

The commenter also suggests the DEIR is flawed because it describes the Project “as if it were an infill project in an already urbanized area in the City.” The Project is not expressly defined as an “infill project” in the DEIR. In some respects, however, the Project can be accurately described as an “infill” project because it embodies a common-sense concept of infill, as that term is commonly used by planning practitioners. This is because the Project contemplates the development of residential uses on an agricultural island that is surrounded by developed urban, semi-urban, and suburban land uses. Figures 2.0-3 through 2.0-7 in the DEIR show the areas that surround the Project site. The DEIR, with its multiple graphics showing the locations of the Project site, accurately depicted their locations and the nature of the surrounding properties. Page 2.0-2 of the DEIR describes the surrounding uses:
3525
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

RESPONSES TO COMMENTS RECEIVED

AFTER FEIR PUBLIC CIRCULATION

3.0 Final Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North 3.0-65 “The Project site is surrounded by a variety of residential land uses. Uses immediately adjacent to the north and east boundary of the Project site include rural residential uses on larger lots, some having small orchards.

Uses to the south of the Project site contain a mix of residential uses, as well as rural residential on larger lots and medium-high density residential in a developed smaller lot residential subdivision. West of the Project site is an electrical power substation and a graded area that is being prepared for additional residential development.” This is an accurate characterization of the surrounding uses, which is largely developed land uses. The DEIR Figure 2.0-8 identifies the Fresno County land use designations and zoning for the Project site and the surrounding area, which identifies the Development Area as designated for Low Density Residential and the Non-Development Area as designated for Rural Residential. These land use designations are urban land use designations. Draft EIR page 2.0-3 states that “At the time Fresno County created the Rural Residential land use designation and assigned that land use designation to areas within the county, the Fresno County General Plan was segregated into two segments; Non Intensive and Intensive, development polices. The Fresno County General Plan Non Intensive section defines county goals and polices regarding agriculture, open space and riverine area protection, mineral extraction, etc. Whereas the Intensive section of the plan defines County goals and policies regarding residential development, directing urban development to cites, lands in city fringe areas as well as unincorporated communities…The Development Area is bounded on the north and east by Rural Residential developments classified as Intensive development in the County General Plan. To the west and south are Low Density Residential uses. The Development Area is an island surrounded by Intensive development.” This statement illustrates Fresno County guidance for intensive development of the Project site.

In addition to its common-sense meaning within the planning community, the term “infill” can have narrower definitions depending on the context. For instance, the commenter may be using the term “infill” as that term is defined by certain statutes, such as California Health and Safety Code section 53545.12, subdivisions (d) and (e), which includes definitions for both “qualifying infill area” and “qualifying infill project.” The DEIR does not suggest the Project is subject to Section 53545.12, and the term “infill” is not used in the Project Description. In fact, page 3.10-5 of the DEIR states: “The proposed Project is not considered an infill development. However, the site has many infill characteristics, including underutilized lands within existing development patterns. The Project site is 3526
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

3.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS RECEIVED

AFTER FEIR PUBLIC CIRCULATION

3.0-66 Final Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North designated for residential uses by the City’s General Plan Land Use Map. While the proposed Project is not located near a job center, commercial areas and services are in the Project vicinity.”
The DEIR also does not suggest the Project is an infill project under other statutes.

For example, the proposed Project is not an infill project as defined by the defined in California Health and Safety Code, or by CEQA Guidelines section 15332. A statutory definition of “infill site” can also be found in Public Resources Code sections 21061.3. A somewhat less precise statutory definition of the same term can be found in section 21099, subdivision (a)(4). A separate statutory category of “residential infill projects” are subject to rules set forth in Public Resources Code section 21081.2. The CEQA Guidelines include yet another definition of “infill site” in section 15191, subdivision (e). This definition informs the incredibly complex multi-factory statutory exemptions for infill projects found in CEQA Guidelines section 15195, which tracks the statutory exemption found in Public Resources Code section 21159.24. The DEIR does not suggest the Project is subject to any of these narrower definitions of the term “infill.” In short, the DEIR accurately characterizes both the Project and the site and that characterization does not in any way undermine the impact analysis in the document. The EIR’s Project Description acknowledges the existence of communities such as the Quail Run and Fowler neighborhoods (identified in the DEIR as Expansion Subarea North, and Expansion Subarea East, respectively), and adequately assesses the potential impacts of the Project on those communities.

Response L-5-4: This comment states “Lastly, the Planning Commission cannot lawfully approve the vesting tentative tract map without first complying with CEQA. As proposed in the City’s agenda and agenda packet, staff recommend that the Planning Commission approve vesting tentative tract map TM6205 for the Project without first certifying the EIR. This is a clear violation of CEQA, which states “with private projects, approval occurs upon the earliest commitment to issue or the issuance by the public agency of a discretionary contract, grant, subsidy, loan, or other form of financial assistance, lease, permit, license, certificate, or other entitlement for use of the project.” (Guidelines, § 15352, subd. (b).) Here, the Planning Commission is proposing to commit the City to the Project, by granting the developer a vested right to develop the Project (see Gov. Code, § 66498.1, subd. (b)) without first complying with CEQA. As the California Supreme Court has explained “CEQA itself requires environmental review before a project's approval, not necessarily its final approval.” (Save Tara v. City of West Hollywood (2008) 45 Cal.4th 116, 134, original italics.) The Planning Commission must defer approval of the VTTM until after the EIR is certified. Moreover, as explained below, the EIR must be significantly revised and recirculated before it can be certified.”
3527
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

RESPONSES TO COMMENTS RECEIVED

AFTER FEIR PUBLIC CIRCULATION

3.0 Final Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North 3.0-67 • The comment is noted. The Planning Commission did not approve the vesting tentative tract map (TM6205) or any other component of the Project. As a result, Save Tara and related authorities are not applicable.

Response L-5-5: This comment presents a series of general requirements for an EIR. • There are no specific comments provided here, rather, this comment serves as a presentation of statutory requirements for an EIR. The requirements presented are already codified in statute, and are noted. This comment warrants no further response.

Response L-5-6: This comment states that “The FEIR fails as an informational document because the Project Objectives are impermissibly narrow and foreclose consideration of feasible alternatives.” Following this statement is several pages describing the commenters reasons for the statement.
• The Project Objectives are not impermissibly narrow and do not foreclose consideration of feasible alternatives to the Project. Page 5.0-1 of the DEIR presents a heading entitled “Project Objectives,” which includes a collection of goals and objectives to define the purpose of the Project. In developing the project objectives, it is notable that the City considered the Legislature’s repeated determinations in recent years that California is facing a statewide housing crisis, and it is clearly within a city’s exercise of its legislative discretion to facilitate the construction of new housing after thorough evaluation of the development potential. Government Code section 65889.5, subdivision (a)(1)(A), states that “[t]he lack of housing, including emergency shelters, is a critical problem that threatens the economic, environmental, and social quality of life in California.” Subdivision (a)(1)(D) of that section adds that “[m]any local governments do not give adequate attention to the economic, environmental, and social costs of decisions that result in disapproval of housing development projects, reduction in density of housing projects, and excessive standards for housing development projects.”
The DEIR identifies the principal Project objective of the project as the expansion of the City’s SOI to include the Project site, and the annexation/reorganization, approval, and subsequent development of the Development Area. The principal Project objective is an overarching Project objective. In addition, the DEIR presents five goals that more fully inform the project purpose and principal Project objective. These goals also serve as a set of Project Objectives, in that they provide flexibility, yet more specific and detailed direction by which Project alternatives can be considered. The goals and objectives presented in the DEIR are as follows:
3528
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

3.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS RECEIVED

AFTER FEIR PUBLIC CIRCULATION

3.0-68 Final Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North • Provide residential housing opportunities that are visually attractive and accommodate the future housing demand in Clovis, consistent with policies stated in A Landscape of Choice to modestly increase urban density.
• Establish a mixture of housing types, sizes and densities that collectively provide for local and regional housing demand, consistent with City requirements as stated in the latest Regional Housing Needs Analysis (RHNA).
• Provide infrastructure that meets City standards and is integrated with existing and planned facilities and connections.
• Establish a logical phasing plan designed to ensure that each phase of development would include necessary public improvements required to meet City standards.
• Expand the City’s Sphere of Influence in order to establish a logical and orderly boundary that promotes the efficient extension of municipal services.

The Project’s goals and objectives were developed by the City in response to the Legislature’s repeated determinations in recent years that California is facing a statewide housing crisis, and the City’s desire to facilitate the construction of new housing in the face of the housing crisis. The City staff has responded with adequate attention to the economic, environmental, and social costs of reduced housing density by establishing a quantified target density that provided the City with significant flexibility to evaluate different scenarios for residential projects on the Project site. The quantified target was presented in the DEIR using the term “quantifiable objective,” which has created some misunderstanding in the DEIR text. The DEIR did not intend to imply that these “quantifiable objectives” were synonymous with “project objectives” under CEQA. This misunderstanding warrants edits to the DEIR text in Section 2.0 Project Description and Section 5.0 Alternatives to clarify.

The objectives discussed in Section 5.0 of the DEIR (as clarified in Chapter 4.0 the Errata) help to inform the consideration, and ultimately, the development of alternatives for analysis. It is notable that the NOP was circulated with the project objectives and the three (3) possible alternatives presented below:
o No Project (No Build) Alternative: Under this alternative, development of the Project site would not occur, and the Project site would remain in its current existing condition.
3529
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

RESPONSES TO COMMENTS RECEIVED

AFTER FEIR PUBLIC CIRCULATION

3.0 Final Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North 3.0-69 o Increased Density Alternative: Under this alternative, the proposed Project would be developed with the same number of units as described in the Project Description, but the density of the residential uses would be increased, reducing the overall footprint of the developed areas, and preserving the remaining Development Area for agricultural production. o Reduced Sphere of Influence Alternative: Under this alternative, the proposed Project would exclude the 78-acre SOI Expansion north and east of the Development Area.

Following the NOP public review feedback, and further evaluation by the City, the Increased Density Alternative was expanded to also have a “Mixed Use” component and a Reduced Density Alternative was added. Ultimately, four (4) alternatives to the proposed Project were established based on input from City staff after considering public comment and after evaluating them against the five project goals and objectives. This is a relevant example of where the project objectives clearly did not foreclose consideration of feasible alternatives, but instead resulted in the addition of an alternative for consideration, and modifications of an alternative that was already under consideration.

The alternatives evaluated in the DEIR represent a reasonable range of feasible alternatives that meet most or all project objectives presented above (and clarified in the Errata) while reducing or avoiding one or more significant environmental effects of the project. Again, a range of alternatives required in a DEIR is governed by a “rule of reason” that requires a DEIR to set forth only those alternatives necessary to permit a reasoned choice. The following alternatives were analyzed in the DEIR:
o No Project (No Build) Alternative: Under this alternative, development of the Project site would not occur, and the Project site would remain in its current existing condition.
o Increased Density Mixed Use Alternative: Under this alternative, the proposed Project would be developed at a higher density for the residential uses and would also include a mixed-use component to the alternative. Approximately 62 acres would be developed with 605 residential units under the medium-high density residential use, 10 acres would be developed with 195 apartments under the high density residential use, and 5 acres would be developed with 108,000 square feet under the neighborhood commercial use.
3530
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

3.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS RECEIVED

AFTER FEIR PUBLIC CIRCULATION

3.0-70 Final Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North o Reduced Density Alternative: Under this alternative, the proposed Project would have a reduced density for the residential uses.

The commenter also states the City has “rejected anything other than the proposed project. In doing so, it prejudicially prevented informed decision making and public participation.” This is not accurate. As explained above, the DEIR originally considered three alternatives to the Project, and after the scoping process, expanded the alternatives to include an additional alternative and modifications to an alternative that was already under consideration. Also, as discussed on page 5.0-2 of the DEIR, the City considered alternative locations, but determined that there are no feasible alternative locations. After establishing the four alternatives as reasonable range of alternatives, the City evaluated the potential environmental effects of the four alternatives and whether those alternatives would meet the Project Objectives. The City has not rejected any of those alternatives, and those alternatives may be considered by the City Council.

In addition, the commenter has not offered any proposed alternative that they believe should be analyzed.

Response L-5-7a: This comment states that “The EIR fails to adequately analyze potentially significant impacts of the Project.” The comment then states “The EIR fails to adequately analyze the Project’s aesthetic impacts, including impacts to light and glare.” The commenter then states: “‘Before the impacts of a project can be assessed and mitigation measures considered, an EIR must describe the existing environment. It is only against this baseline that any significant environmental effects can be determined.’ [Citation.] The Guidelines state that an EIR must include a description of ‘the physical environmental conditions in the vicinity of the project’ which constitute the ‘baseline physical conditions’ for measuring environmental impacts.” (San Joaquin Raptor Rescue Center v. County of Merced (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 645, 657–658 (San Joaquin Raptor).)…Here, the environmental setting discussion in the Aesthetics chapter begins with general information about aesthetics, including an acknowledgment that “[s]cenic resources are specific features of a viewing area (or viewshed) such as trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings. They are specific features that act as the 3531
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

RESPONSES TO COMMENTS RECEIVED

AFTER FEIR PUBLIC CIRCULATION

3.0 Final Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North 3.0-71 focal point of a viewshed and are usually foreground elements.” (Draft EIR, p. 3.1-1, italics added.) Similarly, the discussion of light and glare states that “[s]tationary sources of nighttime light include structure illumination, interior lighting, decorative landscape lighting, and streetlights. The principal mobile source of nighttime light and glare is vehicle headlamp illumination.” (Id. at p. 3.1-3.). • This comment is noted. The commenter has provided discussion about what is necessary for an assessment of impacts and mitigation measures, including establishing a baseline. The commenter next identifies several statements made in the DEIR regarding aesthetics. There are no specific questions presented in this comment. It should be noted that the DEIR includes a description of the baseline aesthetic condition. It is first described in the Project Description (DEIR pages 2.0- 1 through 2.0-3. In addition, there are a variety of figures provided in the Project Description that illustrate the baseline condition of the Project site. Additional baseline information is provided on page 3.1-1 through 3.1-6 of the Draft EIR, describing the aesthetic condition of the Project site and the general vicinity.

Response L-5-7b: This comment states that “The EIR acknowledges that the Project site consists of “mainly rural residential and agricultural land and ha[s] very few sources of light and glare, allowing for clear day and nighttime views” because it is “distant from the more urban and densely populated areas of Fresno and Clovis.” (Draft EIR, p. 3.1-3, emphasis added.)2 The EIR, however, contradicts itself by also claiming that “[t]he existing light environment found in the Project site is considered typical of suburban areas.” (Id.) Similarly, the EIR acknowledges that “sky glow” is “of concern in more rural or natural areas where a darker night sky is either the norm or is important to wildlife[,]” but claims, “[d]ue to the urban nature of the City limits” that “[i]solating impacts of particular sources of light or glare is … not appropriate or feasible for the proposed Project.” (Id., emphasis added.)”
• Additional text is provided on page 3.1-1 through 3.1-6, and 3.1-15 through 3.1- 18 in of the Draft EIR, to amplify the discussion on light and glare, and to clarify references to isolating sources of existing light. The DEIR acknowledgesthat some of the areas within the vicinity of the Project site have limited sources of light and glare, allowing for clear day and nighttime views. To the north of Shepherd Avenue in the vicinity of the Project site is a mix of suburban and rural residential areas. Immediately to the west is suburban residential in the neighborhoods north of Shepherd Avenue (i.e. Lennar Heritage Grove). Immediately to the north and east of the Project site is rural residential development, which has a lower intensity of lighting then what is common in the suburban neighborhoods in the vicinity. These rural residential areas have typical residential building lighting (i.e., 3532
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

3.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS RECEIVED

AFTER FEIR PUBLIC CIRCULATION

3.0-72 Final Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North lights on the building structure in the front and backyard, landscaping lighting, and indoor lighting) like the suburban neighborhoods, but there is a lower density of buildings so overall lighting intensity is lower in these areas when compared to the surrounding suburban lighting. Additionally, some of the rural residential areas do not have street lighting, unlike more intensively developed areas in the vicinity. However, these areas are typical of suburban areas within and immediately outside the City of Clovis, where rural residential neighborhoods are often located adjacent to suburban or urban uses. The mix of lighting is typical of many suburban neighborhoods along the periphery of the City and within certain areas, such as the Dry Creek Preserve.

The DEIR acknowledges the Project would introduce additional sources of light and glare into the vicinity of the Project, including in areas adjacent to the rural residential communities described above. However, this does not mean the Project would result in potentially significant aesthetic effects associated with the introduction of light and glare. The DEIR found no significant impacts would occur. This is because the City’s mandatory standards require measures designed to prevent the spillover of light, as well as high intensity or excessively bright lights. The Project is also required to comply with the City’s mandatory standards for street lights, which includes standard shields to direct lighting to the roadway rights-of-way, without spilling over onto adjacent properties.

The commenter also raises concerns about the Project’s impact on existing sky glow. Sky glow is the effect created by light reflecting into the night sky. Sky glow is of particular concern in areas surrounding observatories, where darker night sky conditions are necessary; however, the introduction of significant levels of sky glow in isolated rural or natural areas can also result in potentially significant effects. Because the Project is located within a largely developed area of Fresno County, and surrounded by developed land uses, several existing light sources already affect residential areas and illuminate the night sky. In other words, sky glow is present under existing conditions, and the introduction of a residential development adjacent to those existing developments would not result in a significant increase in sky glow. While sky glow can increase based on certain intensive uses—such as a project that contemplates stadium lights, spot lights, and strobe lights—no such intensive uses are contemplated for the Project. As a result, any increase in sky glow resulting from this Project would be imperceptible compared to baseline conditions and thus impossible to measure. The Project would therefore not result in new or substantially increased sky glow. In other words, sky glow is considered part of the existing conditions (i.e., the baseline conditions under CEQA).
3533
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

RESPONSES TO COMMENTS RECEIVED

AFTER FEIR PUBLIC CIRCULATION

3.0 Final Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North 3.0-73 The proposed Project also does not have any areas where there would be spillover of light, or high intensity or excessively bright lights. There would be normal City standard street lights that include standard shields to direct lighting to the roadway rights-of-way, without spilling over onto adjacent properties. This new light would not be a potentially significant impact. The new lighting expected would consist of lights on the building structure in the front and backyard, landscaping lighting, and indoor lighting. Although there would be new lighting associated with the residential buildings, the lighting attached to the building structures would be normal residential lighting subject to the City’s standards.

The implementation of these lighting standards is part of the Project’s design and would avoid nuisance light and spillover issues.

Some buildings within the Project would be two-story, and it is therefore possible that lighting from the second story windows could be visible from adjacent properties; however, such second story indoor lighting would not be directed at, or to, the adjacent properties, and would not have a potentially significant impact on those adjacent properties. Additionally, the proposed Project does not include any lights that are considered excessively bright with the potential to create sky glow, such as stadium lights, strobe lights, spot lights, etc. In addition, there are no sources of significant glare associated with the proposed Project.

The DEIR discusses new sources of glare from the proposed Project primarily occurring from the windshields of vehicles travelling to and from the Development Area and from vehicles parked within the Project site. The DEIR notes that significant glare within the Project site is not expected to impact receptors within the Project site, or at adjacent properties, given the visual screening from landscaping, open space, and the residential components of the site plan. Glare from traveling vehicles is a function of the density of vehicles on the roadway, the time that they are present, and the time of day. Generally, glare from traveling vehicles to a receptor is very short lived (fractions of a second) given that the glare is dependent on the amount of time in which the vehicle is positioned at the perfect angle for the sun to reflect light off the vehicle to a receptor. The potential for glare changes throughout the day as the angle of the sun changes. Further, the City does not consider glare from vehicles traveling along roadways as a significant impact. The proposed Project is not anticipated to have high concentrations of glare, and the impact from glare is less than significant.

Response L-5-7c: This comment states that “No facts or evidence support the EIR’s contradictory claim that analyzing “sources of light and glare” is not feasible.” 3534
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

3.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS RECEIVED

AFTER FEIR PUBLIC CIRCULATION

3.0-74 Final Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North • The DEIR does not state that assessment of sources of light and glare is infeasible.

Rather, as explained above, sky glow associated with existing uses within the vicinity of the Project currently exists, and the Project does not contemplate any uses that would significantly increase the level of sky glow. Because the Project is in a largely developed area, any incremental contribution to sky glow would be imperceptible and therefore impossible to isolate.

Response L-5-7d: This comment states that “The Project site and surrounding area are not within the “urban” City limits and, as the EIR admits, consist of “mainly rural residential and agricultural land” with “very few sources of light and glare.” (Draft EIR, p. 3.1-3; see also id. at p. 3.1-6 [“There are minimal existing light sources on and adjacent to the Project site”].) Moreover, the Project will add 605 residences, including new streetlights, and 5,705 new vehicle trips per day, (Draft EIR, Appendix I, p. 2-1) which are all potential sources of light and glare (Draft EIR, p. 3.1-3) to an area with “very few sources of light and glare.” Indeed, the EIR admits that there are no streetlights in the Non-Development Area. (Draft EIR, p. 3.1-6.) The EIR’s internal inconsistencies and failure to analyze the Project’s light and glare impacts on the surrounding rural residential and agricultural land constitute prejudicial abuses of discretion an require the City to revise and recirculate the EIR with the missing analyses…The EIR also fails to adequately analyze and mitigate glare impacts on existing residences in the NonDevelopment Area. (See Draft EIR, pp. 3.1-14 through 3.1-15.) The EIR acknowledges that increased traffic generated by the Project could have light and glare impacts from car windshields and headlights, but presumes they will be insignificant because housing within the Project site would be developed in compliance with City standards in the General Plan and Municipal Code to minimize impacts from light and glare. (Id., see also Final EIR, p. 2.0-23 [“the construction of park and open space areas … provides some visual relief within residential subdivisions.” Emphasis added].) As discussed below, however, CEQA law makes clear that the EIR cannot presume the absence of impacts based solely on consistency with existing standards. (East Sacramento Partnerships for a Livable City v. City of Sacramento (2016) 5 Cal.App.5th 281, 301 (Livable City).) Moreover, the new developments consistency with City standards does nothing to address light and glare impacts to the existing homes in the NonDevelopment Area. Similarly, the EIR claims that there would not be any significant impacts because the Project’s “single-family residential uses would be an extension of single-family residential uses adjacent to the Project site.” (Draft EIR, p. 3.1-14.) This conclusory statement is completely unsupported by the facts, however, as the EIR admits that the existing residences have no streetlights, and the current environment has “very few sources of light and glare.” (See Draft EIR, pp. 3.1-3, 3.1-6.) The EIR 3535
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

RESPONSES TO COMMENTS RECEIVED

AFTER FEIR PUBLIC CIRCULATION

3.0 Final Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North 3.0-75 completely fails to analyze light and glare impacts from Project structures (including second story windows) and traffic on the existing, immediately adjacent neighborhoods. (See Draft EIR, pp. 3.1-14 through 3.1-15.) Moreover, the final EIR does not remedy this deficiency. In fact, the final EIR admits that compliance with the City’s standards would not reduce light and glare impacts to insignificance, “and the overall level of light and glare in the Project site would increase in general as urban development occurs.” (Final EIR, p. 2.0-25.) The EIR must be revised and recirculated to analyze and mitigate this potentially significant impact.” • The Project would not result in any significant aesthetic impacts associated with increase light and glare on the surrounding community. Light and glare is addressed on page 3.1-3, and 3.1-14 through 3.1-15 of the DEIR. The DEIR notes that the proposed Project involves the development of up to 605 single-family residential units, open space totaling approximately 5.54 acres, including 2.25 acres of trails, 2.39 acres of promenade/pedestrian circulation, and 0.90 acres of parks, and associated roadway improvements. The DEIR indicates that several roadways would be constructed within the Development Area to serve the proposed single-family residential uses and that these roadways would result in the introduction of street lighting into a currently undeveloped site. The DEIR indicates that the proposed single-family residential uses and local roadway would be typical of what is already experienced because of the existing singlefamily residential uses and local roadways that occur within the surrounding area.

The proposed single-family residential uses would be an extension of singlefamily residential uses adjacent to the Project site.

The DEIR concludes that the addition of these new single-family residential uses would not result in a significant impact. New sources of glare from the proposed Project would occur primarily from the windshields of vehicles travelling to and from the Development Area and from vehicles parked within the Project site.

However, parking for the proposed residential uses in the Development Area would primarily occur within enclosed garages and driveways. Headlights and windshields would be shielded by the proposed residential structures within the site. Additionally, the Project includes plans for extensive landscaping and open space areas throughout the site, which would provide visual screening and block potential windshield glare for sensitive receptors within the Project site.

Residential structures placed along the boundaries of the Development Area would provide visual screening and block potential windshield glare to areas surrounding the Project site. Glare from traveling vehicles is a function of the density of vehicles on the roadway, the time that they are present, and the time 3536
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

3.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS RECEIVED

AFTER FEIR PUBLIC CIRCULATION

3.0-76 Final Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North of day. Generally, glare from traveling vehicles to a receptor is very short lived (fractions of a second) given that the glare is dependent on the amount of time in which the vehicle is positioned at the perfect angle for the sun to reflect light off the vehicle to a receptor. The potential for glare changes throughout the day as the angle of the sun changes. Further, the City does not consider glare from vehicles traveling along roadways as a significant impact. The proposed Project is not anticipated to have high concentrations of glare, and the impact from glare is less than significant.

The DEIR properly assumes the proposed Project would be required to implement existing City regulations aimed at reducing light impacts to ensure that no unusual nighttime lighting is produced. The Project’s incorporation of these standards would avoid potentially significant effects associated with lighting and glare to the surrounding neighborhoods. For example, Section 9.22.050 of the Clovis Development Code contains standards and provisions related to exterior lighting.

The DEIR indicates that while implementation of regulations and standards within the Clovis Development Code would reduce impacts associated with increased light, the impacts would not be eliminated entirely, and the overall level of light and glare in the Project site would increase in general as urban development occurs. This statement that there would be an impact does not mean that the impact is “significant.” Rather, the DEIR concludes that the impact is “less than significant” for many reasons. First, page 3.1-14 of the DEIR states “it is noted there are no specific features within the proposed Project that would create unusual light and glare.” Light and glare that would be created are normal for suburban areas, and consistent with lighting in the developed neighborhoods in the suburban areas in along Shepherd Avenue to the south, as well as the suburban areas to the immediate west (i.e., Heritage Grove).

The implementation of these lighting standards would ensure the Project would not result in significant light and glare impacts to the surrounding community.

The lighting standards require lighting design that ensures that the Project would not have areas with spillover of light, or high intensity or excessively bright lights.

Nothing in the project design calls for any unusual lighting that would result in spillover, high intensity, or excessively bright lights. There would be normal City standard street lights that include standard shields to direct lighting to the roadway rights-of-way, without spilling over onto adjacent properties. The new lighting expected would consist of lights on the building structure in the front and backyard, landscaping lighting, and indoor lighting.

Some buildings within the Project would be two-story, and it is therefore possible that lighting from the second story windows could be visible from adjacent 3537
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

RESPONSES TO COMMENTS RECEIVED

AFTER FEIR PUBLIC CIRCULATION

3.0 Final Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North 3.0-77 properties; however, such second story indoor lighting would not be directed at, or to, the adjacent properties, and would not have a potentially significant impact on those adjacent properties.

Further, the development adjacent to the Quail Run neighborhood will be buffered by a 25-foot Landscape/Trail buffer adjacent to a proposed neighborhood street. Proposed homes south of this Quail Run neighborhood will front on to the adjacent neighborhood street and homes east of the Quail Run neighborhood will side on to a neighborhood street except for one home that will side on to the Landscape/Trail buffer.

Existing rural residential lots along the north and east property line of the project will have proposed lots backing on to the adjacent rural residences. The existing residential structures are a significant distance from the proposed homes, and will not result in a potentially significant impact.

The DEIR also notes that new lighting, including street lighting, would be “pedestrian-scale lighting” and the fixtures would include shields so that light does not spill onto adjacent properties. The less then significant conclusion is not dependent on the existing regulation cited, rather, compliance with lighting regulations throughout the City create an environment that minimizes light impacts.

While the commenter suggests the existence of new streetlights and windshield glare from vehicles would result in a significant impact, street lighting or windshield glare is not unusual in either the City or the vicinity of the Project, and the City does not consider the addition of such minor sources of light and glare to be a significant impact, particularly given the prevalence of those sources along the Shepherd Avenue corridor and the City generally. Moreover, windshield glare exists on all roadways occupied by motor vehicles, including the streets surrounding the Quail Run Community. The fact that lighting regulations exist is presented in the DEIR as an acknowledgement that lighting regulation exists to ameliorate light nuisances that can develop within human occupied areas when such measures are not taken.

The commenter asserts without evidentiary support that the existence of light itself would inevitably result in a significant impact that would warrant some form of mitigation. The conclusion that the introduction of any new light source results in a per se significant impact is speculative and unsupported by the evidence. The existence of light itself does not constitute a significant impact; rather, it represents an expected outcome in inhabited areas, including the area in the vicinity of the Project. Where an impact from a new source of light would rise to 3538
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

3.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS RECEIVED

AFTER FEIR PUBLIC CIRCULATION

3.0-78 Final Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North the level of “potentially significant” and warrant mitigation would be in a situation where a new source of light is directed to, or allowed to spillover onto adjacent properties, or if the new source of light was excessively bright, as is the case with stadium lights, spot lights, and strobe lights, such that the new light would cause sky glow or other nuisance situations. Spillover of light onto adjacent property, or excessively bright lights that create sky glow, such as stadium lights, would present a potentially significant impact and warrant consideration of mitigation to reduce or avoid the impact. The proposed Project does not have any areas where there would be spillover of light. There would be normal City standard streetlights that include standard shields to direct lighting to the roadway rights-of-way, without spilling over onto adjacent properties. This new light would not create a potentially significant impact. Additionally, there would be new lighting associated with the residential buildings. The lighting attached to the building structure would be normal residential lighting consistent with City’s standards. These lighting standards are designed to be protective of nuisance light and spillover issues. The new lighting expected would consist of lights on the building structure in the front and backyard, landscaping lighting, and indoor lighting. Some buildings would be two-story, and lighting from the second story windows could be visible from adjacent properties, but second story indoor lighting would not be directed at, or to, the adjacent properties, and would not have a potentially significant impact on those adjacent properties. Additionally, the proposed Project does not include any lights that are considered excessively bright with the potential to create sky glow, such as stadium lights, strobe lights, spot lights, etc. In addition, there are no sources of significant glare associated with the proposed Project. The DEIR states on page 3.1-14 that “it is noted there are no specific features within the proposed Project that would create unusual light and glare.” It is notable that the commenter, also, has not identified any specific sources of light or locations where the Project would have a significant impact on an adjacent property other than the concept that the existence of light from a two-story residence could be a significant light impact. Again, the existence of light inside a two-story home is intended to illuminate the inside of the home, and is not directed to neighboring properties. The visibility of the neighboring light from inside a two-story home is not by itself a potentially significant impact. Again, there is no portion of the project that would direct light onto adjacent properties, rather, the new development would have typical residential lighting commonly observed in existing Clovis neighborhoods. The existence of such light does not constitute a significant impact. 3539
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

RESPONSES TO COMMENTS RECEIVED

AFTER FEIR PUBLIC CIRCULATION

3.0 Final Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North 3.0-79 The commenter states: “Moreover, the final EIR does not remedy this deficiency.

In fact, the final EIR admits that compliance with the City’s standards would not reduce light and glare impacts to insignificance, “and the overall level of light and glare in the Project site would increase in general as urban development occurs.” (Final EIR, p. 2.0-25.).” This statement does not accurately characterize the conclusions in the Final EIR. Nowhere in the FEIR discussion on page 2.0-25 is there a “significance” or “insignificance” conclusion provided; rather, that portion of the Final EIR includes a discussion of impacts. The Final EIR states that “the impacts would not be eliminated entirely, and the overall level of light and glare in the Project site would increase in general as urban development occurs.” This is not a conclusion that any such impacts would be significant; to the contrary, this language is an acknowledgement that new light will occur and that the change is an impact. Those impacts, however, would ultimately be less than significant. As stated on page 3.1-14 of the DEIR, “it is noted there are no specific features within the proposed Project that would create unusual light and glare,” and as discussed previously, there are no locations were spillover or excessively bright lights would be erected such that there would be a nuisance or sky glow.

Given that there are no specific light features within the proposed Project that would cause unusual light or glare impacts, the DEIR and FEIR appropriately concludes that the impact light and glare is less than significant.

Response L-5-7e: This comment states that “An equally fatal flaw in the EIR’s analysis is the characterization of the existing environment on the Project site, specifically, the pecan orchard, as an island of agricultural land surrounded by urbanized development. (Draft EIR, p. 3.1-11; see also Final EIR, pp. 2.0-22 through 2.0-23.) On the contrary, the orchard, which has been actively farmed for approximately 50 years, is a visual buffer between the low-density neighborhoods in Expansion Subarea North and Expansion Subarea East and the more urbanized areas of the City south of Shepard Avenue. (See Draft EIR, p. 3.1-4 [“Agricultural lands provide for visual relief form urbanized areas and act as community separators to nearby urban areas”].) Contrary to the unsupported claim in the final EIR, the inclusion of less than one acre of parkland does not remedy the loss of 77-acres of trees, which, as the EIR admits, are visual resources. (Cf. Final EIR, p. 2.0-23.)…The EIR completely fails to analyze the impacts of eliminating the agricultural buffer created by the orchard. (See Id. at p. 3.1-5 [“The majority of the Development Area is in active agricultural use”].) Even worse, the EIR fails to analyze the impacts of replacing the existing visual buffer with highly urbanized, medium-high density residential development. Instead of performing this analysis or explaining why it is infeasible, the EIR concludes, without any support, that 3540
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

3.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS RECEIVED

AFTER FEIR PUBLIC CIRCULATION

3.0-80 Final Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North “the existing visual character of the Non-development Area would not change as part of the proposed Project.” (Draft EIR, p. 3.1-10; see also Final EIR, p. 2.0-21.) As stated above, this could not be further from the truth as the Project would destroy the existing agricultural buffer an replace it with the very urbanization that the orchard has shielded the Non-Development Area from for more than 50 years. The EIR must analyze the aesthetic impacts of razing the existing 77-acre orchard and constructing 605 homes, including impacts to the existing neighborhoods of the non-development area.”
• The elimination of the pecan orchard would not result in any potentially significant environmental effects. First, the pecan orchard does not function as an “agricultural buffer.” The term “agricultural buffer” as used in the planning profession describes areas where planners establish non-intensive uses/open space to separate residences from agricultural land. This is done because the intensive agricultural activities that occur within agricultural operations are often viewed as incompatible with adjacent residential land uses. In this case, the agricultural field (orchard) adjacent to the Development Area is not an agricultural buffer in the true sense of the term. Rather, there is no agricultural buffer that separates the agricultural use and the existing residences.

The City also does not consider the pecan orchard to be a visual buffer. The City’s General Plan does not designate the Development Area as a visual buffer, scenic, or any other visually significant feature. Instead, the City’s General Plan designates the Development Area for conversion to an urban use.

In some instances, agricultural lands form part of a viewshed or otherwise provide visual relief from otherwise urban development, and the conversion of agricultural land to urban uses creates a change in what residents and passerby see on a property. However, such changes do not necessarily result in a “significant” impact. According to the CEQA Guidelines, such changes are considered a significant impact where the change would have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista or substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the project site and its surroundings.

Under these standards, the Project would not result in a significant environmental effect. The pecan orchard portion of the Project site is an island of agricultural land use surrounded by developed homes to the east, north, and south, and an entitled residential subdivision under construction to the west.

What this means is that the pecan orchard is a relic agricultural piece of property that has remained intact and operational despite the properties in the immediate surrounding aesthetically changing to a residential aesthetic. The proposed 3541
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

RESPONSES TO COMMENTS RECEIVED

AFTER FEIR PUBLIC CIRCULATION

3.0 Final Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North 3.0-81 Project would change the existing aesthetic of the Project site to be consistent with the residential (suburban and rural) theme established for Shepherd Avenue by the City of Fresno and the City of Clovis’ land use approvals along Shepherd Avenue. With few exceptions, both cities have required residential projects to construct a uniform 6 ft. tall concrete block wall setback at least 30 feet from the street with landscaping, sidewalks, and bike lanes. Trees of a small to medium size and a variety of shrubs create a generally consistent shared landscape theme by both cities.

In addition, a change in the visual character of a project site does not necessarily mean the visual character of the project site or the surrounding area will be degraded. The Project applicant has submitted a conceptual plan for the project detailing the Shepherd Avenue and open space landscaping. That conceptual landscape plan includes visual components that will enhance the appearance of the neighborhood once developed like those constructed by adjacent residential projects along Shepherd Avenue. These improvements include landscaping improvements like new street trees and other neighborhood greenery along Shepherd and Sunnyside Street frontages of the Project. The proposed Project would also result in the construction of park and open space areas which provides some visual relief within residential subdivisions. While implementation of the proposed Project would change the existing visual character of the area, the development components of the subdivisions are in alignment with the City’s requirements for residential subdivisions in the region.

Response L-5-7f: This comment states that “Similarly, the EIR’s conclusion that, because the Project would comply with the City’s General Plan policies and Development Code, it “would not have a substantial adverse impact on scenic vistas, corridors, or resources in the City of Clovis” is completely unsupported. (Draft EIR, p. 3.1-11, emphasis added.) First, Project’s destruction of the agricultural buffer would significantly impact visual resources, including trees (see Draft EIR p. 3.1-1) and the EIR’s analysis of impacts cannot be artificially limited to the City limits, because the Project’s aesthetic impacts will affect the Non-Development Area, which is not “in the City of Clovis.” • As stated in the DEIR, the Project site is not designated as a scenic vista by the City of Clovis General Plan or the Fresno County General Plan, nor does it contain any unique or distinguishing features that would qualify the site for designation as a scenic vista. The DEIR does discuss the fact that development along Shepherd Avenue was contemplated in the Clovis General Plan EIR, which concluded that development/urbanization of the agricultural lands in the area was a less than significant environmental impact. General Plan DEIR pages 5.1-13 through 5.1-14 3542
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

3.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS RECEIVED

AFTER FEIR PUBLIC CIRCULATION

3.0-82 Final Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North reflects the City’s finding that new development would not substantially alter or damage scenic vistas or resources in the Plan Area or along a state scenic highway. The City has established their desire to convert the agricultural land to an urban use in the General Plan by designating it for development. In designating land for development, the City establishes standards for the orderly growth and development of the City to establish and maintain the community’s history and quality characteristics in appropriate locations. It requires high quality planning and design for development that enhances the visual character of the City, avoids conflicts between land uses, encourages the appropriate mix of uses, and preserves the scenic qualities of the City. It also creates a comprehensive and stable pattern of land uses upon which to plan sewerage, transportation, water supply, and other public facilities and utilities. The General Plan EIR provides an analysis and impact conclusion for conversion of agricultural and rural residential land for new development. The General Plan EIR concludes that there are potential impacts associated with these changes, but that following specific required provisions (General Plan policy, design guidelines, and development standards) would ensure that there is not a significant impact associated with changes from new development. Here, the City of Clovis has established two important directives for future projects within the General Plan Planning Area.

The City has provided 1) a directive that new development follows the General Plan policies, design guidelines, and development standards, and 2) a conclusion that compliance with such General Plan policies, design guidelines, and development standards shall result in a less than significant impact. While the threshold and analysis under the City’s directive is qualitative, the General Plan EIR impact conclusions are applicable to the proposed Project.

The DEIR does acknowledge that the loss of the visual appearance of the agricultural land on the site will change the visual character of the Project site in perpetuity, which some people are expected to view as a loss of an isolated visually attractive amenity, but not that it is a significant impact. The City considers the mandatory requirements for landscaping and site plan as effective in reducing potential significant visual impacts on new development. Overall, the conversion of the isolated and remnant agricultural land surrounded by residential and rural residential land uses is a considered less than significant impact.

Response L-5-7g: This comment states that “Second and more importantly, “[c]ompliance with a general plan in and of itself ‘does not insulate a project from the EIR requirement, where it may be fairly argued that the project will generate significant environmental effects.’ [Citation.] A project’s effects can be significant even if ‘they are not greater than those deemed 3543
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

RESPONSES TO COMMENTS RECEIVED

AFTER FEIR PUBLIC CIRCULATION

3.0 Final Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North 3.0-83 acceptable in a general plan.’” (Livable City , supra, 5 Cal.App.5th at p. 301; see also Keep Our Mountains Quiet v. County of Santa Clara (2015) 236 Cal.App.4th 714, 732 [EIR required “if substantial evidence supports a fair argument that the Project may have significant unmitigated noise impacts, even if other evidence shows the Project will not generate noise in excess of the County's noise ordinance and general plan”]; Berkeley Keep Jets Over the Bay Committee v. Board of Port Com’rs (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 1344, 1381 [“the fact that residential uses are considered compatible with a noise level of 65 decibels for purposes of land use planning is not determinative in setting a threshold of significance under CEQA”].) The EIR’s repeated claim that the Project’s compliance with City of Clovis General Plan policies and standards (cf. Draft EIR, pp. 3.1-11, 3.1-12) says nothing about the physical alteration of the environment that replacing 77 acres of orchard with 605 residences will cause. The EIR must be revised to analyze the Project’s aesthetic impacts on the surrounding environment.”
• The DEIR appropriately discloses the physical alterations of the Project site that would occur from new development. The visual changes are described, and the impacts from the changes are disclosed within the context of CEQA. The DEIR notes the conclusions that were made in the General Plan EIR, and notes that the General Plan provides direction for new development to be located along Shepherd Avenue. This includes development of the Project site. General Plan DEIR pages 5.1-14 through 5.1-15 reflect the City’s finding that new development would alter the visual appearance of the City and its Plan Area, but would not substantially degrade its existing visual character or quality such that there would be a significant impact. The analysis performed by the City specifically looked at “…new development farther away from the City’s existing boundaries into the further SOI and non-SOI Plan Area, which are currently designated primarily as agriculture and rural residential.” Here, the General Plan DEIR describes characteristics like the Development Area and general vicinity. The General Plan DEIR notes that “New projects would have to comply with the General Plan Update policies, design guidelines, and development standards. Subsequent environmental review would also be required for development of each individual project. These required provisions would ensure that the altered visual appearance of the City would maintain the existing visual quality and character of the City and its surrounding landscape. Consequently, the full buildout of the General Plan Update would not result in significant adverse impacts to the City’s visual quality and character.” Here, the City of Clovis has provided 1) a directive that new development follow the General Plan policies, design guidelines, and development standards, and 2) a conclusion that compliance with such General Plan policies, design guidelines, and development standards shall result in a less 3544
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

3.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS RECEIVED

AFTER FEIR PUBLIC CIRCULATION

3.0-84 Final Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North than significant impact. While the threshold and analysis under the City’s directive is qualitative, the impact conclusions from the certified General Plan DEIR emphasize the City’s finding that compliance with the required provisions would ensure that there is not a significant impact associated with changes in the visual appearance or character from new development.

Response L-5-8a: This comment states that “The EIR’s analysis of agricultural impacts acknowledges that the 77-acre Project site contains 63.60 acres of Prime Farmland and 11.44 acres of Farmland of Statewide Importance, as designated by the California Department of Conservation. (Draft EIR, pp. 3.2-5 through 3.2-6.) The EIR, however, ignores these designations based on a Land Evaluation and Site Assessment (LESA) model analysis that uses faulty assumptions about the feasibility of irrigated production at the orchard. (See Id., see also Draft EIR, Appendix B [LESA analysis].) Specifically, the EIR claims, based on the presence of “hardpan” in 5 of 19 bore samples from the geotechnical engineering report (see Draft EIR, Appendix F) that “the majority of the property has a thin layer of productive soil, underlaid by a hardpan and perched water that is not conductive to sustain long term agricultural production.” (Draft EIR, p. 3.2-

7.) The fifty-plus years of agricultural production at the Project site belies this conclusion.”
• The Land Evaluation and Site Assessment (LESA) model includes an evaluation of “Land Evaluation” (LE) factors, as well as “Site Assessment” (SA) factors. For the Land Evaluation portion of the model, factors such as Land Capability Classification Ratings and Storie Index provide the characteristics for establishing an LE score.

The Land Capability Classification System classifies soils from Class I to Class VIII based on their ability to support agriculture with Class I being the highest quality soil. The Storie Index considers other factors such as slope and texture to arrive at a rating. These systems are described on page 3.2-2 through 3.2-3 of the DEIR.

It is notable that Table 3.2-5 on page 3.2-7 of the DEIR shows that 45 percent of the Project site has a Storie Index that is described as follows: “If used for crops, severely limited and require special management.” Only 24 percent of the Project site is characterized with the highest Storie Index. It is also notable the majority of the Development Area, 57.55 acres (74%) of the site is classified as Class II – IV soils. Class II soils have moderate limitations that restrict choice plants or that require moderate conservation practices. Class III soils have severe limitations that restrict the choice of plants or that require special conservation practices, or both. Class IV soils have very severe limitations that restrict the choice of plants or that require very careful management, or both.
3545
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

RESPONSES TO COMMENTS RECEIVED

AFTER FEIR PUBLIC CIRCULATION

3.0 Final Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North 3.0-85 Ultimately, the Capability Classification System and the Storie Index soil values are input into the LESA model, regardless of any additional soil inclusions (i.e. “hardpan”) that are discovered in geotechnical borings. These soil values result in a Land Evaluation Score in the LESA Model. In addition, these soil values provide some weight to a Project Size score in the LESA model. Again, the fact that “hardpan” was found in the geotechnical borings, provides no weight in the LE portion of the LESA model.

The existence of “hardpan” is not a specific factor that is considered under either Land Capability Classification or Storie Index, nor it is provided scoring weight within the “Land Evaluation” score. Instead, the Land Capability Classification and Storie Index are soil classifications that are well documented in the United States Geological Service’s Soil Survey for the area. The LE score utilizes these factors in establishing a project score, but does not use the existence of “hardpan” as a factor.

The SA portion of the model considers four factors: Project Size, Water Resources Availability, Surrounding Agricultural Land, and Surrounding Protected Resource Land. In this portion of the model, the existence of hardpan has no effect on three of the factors (i.e. Project Size, Surrounding Agricultural Land, and Surrounding Protected Resource Land). Under the Water Resources Availability factor, “hardpan” is a consideration in the overall evaluation, but is not provided significant scoring weight. To understand the considerations regarding the Water Resource Availability factor, an explanation is provided by the California Department of Conservation below.
“The Water Resource Availability factor in the LESA Model was developed in cooperation with Nichols-Berman, a consulting firm under contract with the Department of Conservation. A thorough discussion of the development of this rating is presented by Nichols-Berman in a report to the Department entitled, Statewide LESA Methodologies Report - Project Size and Water Resource Availability Factors1. During the development of this factor, it became apparent that certain conditions unique to California would need to be represented in this system.

First, it was decided to classify water reliability based upon the effects on agricultural production (such as being forced to change to lower-value crops, putting in groundwater pumps, or cutting back on the acreage farmed) rather than the actual type of limitation (such as a limitation on the quantity, frequency, 1 Statewide LESA Methodologies Report - Project Size and Water Resource Availability Factors. Prepared by Nichols - Berman, for the Department of Conservation. 1995. 3546
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

3.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS RECEIVED

AFTER FEIR PUBLIC CIRCULATION

3.0-86 Final Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North or duration of water delivery). LESA systems have traditionally focused on the latter. However, it was found that the many types of limitations are too varied in California to adequately represent in the LESA system. In the Statewide LESA system, these effects are referred to as restrictions.

Second, the factor had to include an interrelation with cost. The historical shortages and unreliability of California water use has led to the establishment of various interconnected and dual systems. Probably more than any other state, reliability is related with cost -- a more reliable water supply can sometimes be obtained, but at a greater cost. Therefore, restrictions were classified into two major categories -- physical and economic. These are separated because, generally, a physical restriction is more severe than an economic restriction and this should be reflected in the LESA system.

Third, the factor had to include the effects of the drought cycle in California.

During the drought of 1987 to 1992, many agricultural areas of the state experienced water shortages. The impact of these shortages resulted in several different actions. Some areas were able to avoid the worst effects of the drought simply by implementing water conservation measures. Other areas were able to obtain additional water supplies, such as by securing water transfers or simply pumping more groundwater, but at an increase in the overall price of water.

Other options included shifting crops, replanting to higher value crops to offset the increase in water prices, or leaving land fallow. A project site that experiences restrictions during a drought year should not be scored as high as a similar project site that does not.

The easiest way to make determinations of irrigation feasibility and the potential restrictions of water sources is to investigate the cropping history of the project site. For instance, was the water supply to the project site reduced by the local irrigation district during the last drought? If the site has a ground water supply, do area ground water levels sometimes drop to levels that force markedly higher energy costs to pump the water?
If the history of the project site is unavailable (including when the site has recently installed an irrigation system), look at the history of the general area. However, remember that the project site may have different conditions than the rest of the region. For instance, the project site could have an older water right than others in the region. Although certain areas of the state had severe restrictions on water deliveries during the last drought, some parcels within these areas had very secure deliveries due to more senior water rights. If this was the case in the region of the project site, check the date of water right and compare it with parcels that received their total allotment during the last drought. The local irrigation district should have information on water deliveries.
3547
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

RESPONSES TO COMMENTS RECEIVED

AFTER FEIR PUBLIC CIRCULATION

3.0 Final Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North 3.0-87 The scoring of water resource availability for a project site should not just reflect the adequacies of water supply in the past -- it should be a prediction of how the water system will perform in the future. For instance, a local jurisdiction might find that the allocation of flows to stream and river systems has been recently increased for environmental reasons, which will decrease the future available surface water supply. In this case, the past history of the site is not an adequate representation of future water supply and water system performance.

Considering this explanation, the Department of Conservation established the following factors to score the Water Resources Availability for a site: Irrigated Production Feasibility, Physical Restrictions, and Economic Restrictions. “Feasibility” of irrigated production considers the following three factors:
1) There is an existing irrigation system on the project site that can serve the portion of the project;
2) Physical and/or economic restrictions are not severe enough to halt production; and
3) It is possible to achieve a viable economic return on crops though irrigated production.

The LESA model poses a major question that must be considered, “if there is an irrigated crop that can be grown within the region, can it actually be grown on the project site?” Here, there are several considerations. To answer this question, the agricultural manager/property owner was questioned. First, the agricultural manager/property owner has indicated that there is not a supply of water from irrigation districts as is common in the region. Instead, the property relies on groundwater pumped from wells. The agricultural manager/property owner has indicated that there have been extended periods without irrigation from dry wells resulting in significant mortality, and significant economic loss. The agricultural manager/property owner has also indicated that there are periods of time where irrigation is halted because repairs and replacements to pumps become necessary following theft and vandalism. These repairs and replacements increase the costs of pumping groundwater, in addition to the economic losses associated with plant mortality. The agricultural manager/property owner has indicated that the ongoing agricultural operation is not sustainable from both an economic standpoint, and from the physical limitations that groundwater pumping presents for the operation.

3.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS RECEIVED

AFTER FEIR PUBLIC CIRCULATION

3.0-88 Final Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North water, or leaving land fallow. The LESA model specifically indicates that this could be from ground or surface water becoming depleted or unusable. The assumptions used for the LESA model reflect that irrigation must rely on ground water, and groundwater pumping has proven to be unpredictable and unreliable in recent years as available water from the aquifer under the Project site had been highly variable and provided an unreliable supply. The property owner has indicated the wells on the Project site went entirely dry and the pecan trees suffered large-scale tree mortality as a result. The LESA model input was that Physical Restrictions exist. The presence of “hardpan” is another physical restriction that occurs in places on the Project site, but this fact serves as an additional fact to acknowledges other physical restrictions that are present. The historical unreliability of groundwater is the most critical fact that determines the input for the Physical Restrictions factor in the LESA model.

The LESA model defines an economic restriction as a rise in the cost of water to a level that forces a reduction in consumption. This could be from the extra cost of pumping. The agricultural manager/property owner cited theft and vandalism of pumps by neighbors as an economic restriction given that these actions increase costs associated with groundwater pumping, and cause delays needed to make repairs or replace pumps such that there are periods that lack irrigation. The LESA model input was that Economic Restrictions exist.

Based on these facts, the LESA model input was that irrigation was not feasible in drought years, but was feasible in non-drought years.

The DEIR discusses the existence of hardpan; however, the DEIR does not suggest hardpan is the only soil condition present. Rather, the DEIR clearly presents the variation in soil conditions as presented in the Soil Survey, and supplements that data with soil data from test borings. Soils typically have inclusions with variation in the soil composition, some of which may be conducive to agricultural production. The property owner has significant experience with the soil conditions, and has spent considerable money testing the soil to better understand how to manage the orchard. Ultimately, the property owner has concluded that the agricultural operation is not conducive to continued soil management to produce high agricultural yields because there is too much cemented silty sand, clayey sand, and silty sand with clay, locally referred to as "hardpan" that is encountered in the Development Area. This cementation retards the free percolation of surface water into the soil stratum below the hardpan, frequently resulting in a temporary perched water table condition at or near the ground surface during winter periods of precipitation. The perched water table can result in anerobic conditions in the root zone, which can result in 3549
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

RESPONSES TO COMMENTS RECEIVED

AFTER FEIR PUBLIC CIRCULATION

3.0 Final Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North 3.0-89 root mortality and damage or death to the crop. This hardpan layer limits the types of crops that can be successful and is generally a variable that makes the property less economically viable for agricultural production. While it is possible to manage, or treat the soil mechanically to break the hardpan, and condition the soils for agricultural production, there is significant cost associated with such treatments and given the lack of water reliability for agricultural production, the property owner is not able to justify the significant cost of the operation.

It is recognized that the Development Area has historically been used as a Pecan Orchard, but that historic use does not necessarily support the conclusion that site-specific conditions are conducive to sustaining long-term agricultural production using modern agricultural practices which emphasize access to multiple sources of water, economies of scale, and operational efficiencies.

For several years, the current property owner has been responsible for managing the former Cal-Pecan orchard located on the Project site. In recent years, primarily due to drought conditions and expansion of new development surrounding the former Cal-Pecan orchard, the economic viability of irrigated agricultural production has diminished. The Project site is located entirely north and east of the Enterprise Canal and therefore outside of the nearby Fresno Irrigation District boundary. It is therefore not eligible to receive deliveries of surface water from any irrigation district. This is an entirely different situation from other properties located in the region, such as the nearby Heritage Grove growth area. A portion of Heritage Grove is located on the west side of the Enterprise Canal and continues to receive deliveries of surface water to support agricultural production. Recent SGMA regulatory changes that now severely limit groundwater pumping has constrained the ability of any agricultural properties located outside of an irrigation district to support intensive agricultural uses that require regular and timely irrigation; further, groundwater pumping on this property has proven to be unpredictable and unreliable in recent years as available water from the aquifer under the Project site had been highly variable and provided an unreliable supply. It is notable that the property owners of Quail Run have provided substantial information regarding their wells being dry and needing to truck water in for their use. This issue of water reliability for the Quail Run residents also applies to the Pecan Orchard as they operate from groundwater in the exact same region. The property owner has indicated that they made every effort to continue irrigating the trees throughout the drought conditions last summer, but the wells on the Project site went entirely dry and caused the pumps to burn out. The pecan trees suffered tremendous damage without available irrigation water and it resulted in large-scale tree mortality. This 3550
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

3.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS RECEIVED

AFTER FEIR PUBLIC CIRCULATION

3.0-90 Final Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North fact should be no surprise to the commenter, considering the residents that they represent have experienced those same water reliability issues during the drought.

The LESA model assumptions are based on published facts, as well as existing conditions that are verifiable in the field and economic hardships that exist from droughts and impacts from surrounding development. These facts are deemed appropriate and accurate assumptions for use in the LESA model.

Response L-5-8b: This comment states that “Moreover, as indicated above, the geotechnical report does not support this conclusion. Appendix F includes bore sample logs from 19 borings and identified “weakly cemented” silty sand in Borings B1, B3, at depths of approximately 8 feet, and B15, B16, and B18 at depths ranging from 2 to 4 feet. The bore samples also identified “clayey sand” in Borings B6, B7, B11, and B15 at depths of 8 to 14 feet. (Draft EIR, Appendix F.) Accordingly, the majority of bore samples (i.e., eleven of nineteen) do not contain “hardpan” and there is no evidence that the Project site contains only “a thin layer of productive soil” that has kept the orchard in continuous operation for more than fifty years. (Cf. Draft EIR, p. 3.2-7.).” • It is recognized that the Development Area has historically been used as a Pecan Orchard, but that historic use does not necessarily support the conclusion that site-specific conditions are conducive to sustaining long-term agricultural production using modern agricultural practices which emphasize access to multiple sources of water, economies of scale, and operational efficiencies. The DEIR discusses the existence of hardpan; however, the DEIR does not suggest that hardpan is the only soil condition present, nor does is suggest that its presence is the only reason that continued agricultural production is not sustainable. Rather, the DEIR presents the variation in soil conditions as presented in the Soil Survey, and supplements that data with soil data from test borings. The areas that have hardpan are not as conducive to sustained long term agricultural production without treatments to help break hardpan and facilitate pecan root success. It is important to understand how the root system for a pecan tree works.

A pecan tree has both, tap and feeder roots. A tap root is a deeper penetrating root, while feeder roots are much shallower. A hardpan, whether it is at two feet or eight feet, inhibits plant success by retarding the ability of the tap root to fully develop. The feeder roots are also critically important to the plant, and require a well-drained soil in the upper soil horizon. The property owner has concluded there is too much "hardpan" encountered below 2 feet in depth in the Development Area for the success of the pecan trees. The property owner has indicated that the hardpan retards the free percolation of surface water into the 3551
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

RESPONSES TO COMMENTS RECEIVED

AFTER FEIR PUBLIC CIRCULATION

3.0 Final Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North 3.0-91 soil stratum below the hardpan, frequently resulting in a temporary perched water table condition at or near the ground surface during winter periods of precipitation. The perched water table can result in anerobic conditions in the upper root zone, which can result in feeder root mortality and damage or death to the crop. While it is recognized that the Development Area has historically been used as a Pecan Orchard, the historic use does not necessarily support the conclusion that site-specific conditions are conducive to sustaining long-term agricultural production. Instead, the property owner has determined that the combination of drought conditions, theft, and vandalism from adjacent properties, in addition to soil characteristics that require more intensive management, make long-term agricultural production unsustainable.

Response L-5-8c: This comment states that “The LESA analysis included with the EIR (Draft EIR, Appendix B) relied, in part, on the faulty assumption that “hardpan” covered the majority of the Project site (when, in fact, it was found in less than half of bore samples) to conclude that irrigated production is infeasible in drought years, making the Water Resource Availability score 30 out of 100, based on “Option 11.” (See also, Draft EIR, pp. 3.2-10, 3.2-16.) The LESA analysis concludes that, due to this infeasibility, the Project’s overall score is 50.50, with a Site Assessment score of 18 (largely based on the Water Resource Availability score of 30). (Draft EIR, p. 3.2-16; see Draft EIR, Appendix B.) Correcting the LESA score to remove the faulty assumptions that “hardpan” covers the majority of the site at depths of 2 feet, changes the Water Resource Availability score to 65, using “Option 7.” (See the Revised LESA analysis attached to this letter as Exhibit 1.) Based on the corrected Water Resource Availability score, the total LESA score for the Project site is 55.75, with a Site Assessment score of

23.25.”
• The Land Evaluation and Site Assessment (LESA) model includes an evaluation of “Land Evaluation” (LE) factors, as well as “Site Assessment” (SA) factors. As discussed under Response L-5-8a, the existence of “hardpan” is not a specific factor that is considered within the LE score. The SA portion of the model considers four factors: Project Size, Water Resources Availability, Surrounding Agricultural Land, and Surrounding Protected Resource Land. In this portion of the model, the existence of hardpan has no effect on three of the factors (i.e.

Project Size, Surrounding Agricultural Land, and Surrounding Protected Resource Land). Under the Water Resources Availability factor, “hardpan” is a consideration in the overall evaluation, but is not provided significant scoring weight. To understand the considerations regarding the Water Resource Availability factor, an explanation is provided by the California Department of 3552
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

3.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS RECEIVED

AFTER FEIR PUBLIC CIRCULATION

3.0-92 Final Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North Conservation within the LESA Model instruction manual (See Response L-5-8a).

The LESA model defines a physical restriction as an occasional or regular interruption or reduction in a water supply, or a shortened irrigation season, that forces a change in agricultural practices -- such as planting a crop that uses less water, or leaving land fallow. The LESA model specifically indicates that this could be from ground or surface water becoming depleted or unusable. The assumptions used for the LESA model reflect that irrigation must rely on ground water, and groundwater pumping has proven to be unpredictable and unreliable in recent years as available water from the aquifer under the Project site had been highly variable and provided an unreliable supply. The property owner has 3553
AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.

RESPONSES TO COMMENTS RECEIVED

AFTER FEIR PUBLIC CIRCULATION

3.0 Final Environmental Impact Report – Shepherd North 3.0-93 indicated the wells on the Project site went entirely dry and the pecan trees suffered large-scale tree mortality as a result. The LESA model input was that Physical Restrictions exist. The presence of “hardpan” is another physical restriction that occurs in places on the Project site, but this fact serves as an additional fact to acknowledges other physical restrictions that are present. The historical unreliability of groundwater is the most critical fact that determines the input for the Physical Restrictions factor in the LESA model.

Based on these facts, the LESA model input was that irrigation was not feasible in drought years, but was feasible in non-drought years. This results in selection of “Option 11” within the LESA model. The facts support this conclusion.

Response L-5-8d: This comment states that “The draft EIR states that the Project would have a significant impact on agricultural resources if the total LESA score is greater than 50 out of 100 and both the Land Evaluation and Site Assessment component scores are greater than 20. (Draft EIR, p. 3.2-16.) Using the corrected LESA score (which does not rely on the faulty “hardpan” assumptions in the Draft EIR) the Project will have a potentially significant impact on agricultural resources, which the EIR must be revised to analyze and mitigate.”
• This comment is addressed, in part, under Reponses L-5-8a, L-5-8b, and L-5-8c.

Page 3 ends

Clovis City CouncilMarch 18, 2024

Clovis City Council
March 18, 2024